The Draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water

House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water

Written Evidence

Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry The draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water are included.

List of written evidence

Page

1 Infrastructure Planning Commission 3 2 Consumer Council for Water 6 3 Thames Water 14 4 Water UK 18 5 Ofwat 23 6 The Greater London Authority 36 7 London Councils 43 8 The Environment Agency 48 9 Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group 56 10 STOPtheSHAFT Putney & Barnes 64 11 Natural England 68

Written evidence submitted by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (WWnps 01)

Background

1. The IPC was established on the 1st October 2009, under the Planning Act 2008, to examine applications for development consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), including waste water infrastructure developments above the thresholds specified in the Act. Once this National Policy Statements (NPS) has been designated by the Secretary of State, the IPC will have the power to decide such applications, and must do so in accordance with the NPS.

2. The Coalition Government has reaffirmed the importance of National Policy Statements in the infrastructure planning regime. The IPC is to be abolished, subject to the will of Parliament, from April 2012, although the expertise of the organisation will be retained in a Major Infrastructure Planning Unit as part of a reorganised Planning Inspectorate. NPSs will continue to play a central role in examination of and decision-making on major infrastructure projects.

3. The IPC has no remit to comment on policy matters. Our comments in evidence to the Committee, and in response to the Government’s consultation, will therefore be restricted to the clarity with which policy is set out in the NPS and other aspects of its fitness for purpose.

Summary

4. The IPC welcomes the publication of the draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water. It is our view that the draft would benefit from clarification and development in some areas, as set out below.

Role of the NPS

5. The purpose of a National Policy Statement is to set out national policy in relation to a specified type of development, and it is our observation that, with the exception of the draft NPS on nuclear energy (EN-6) and this draft NPS, they do so without making reference to specific locations for particular proposed infrastructure. The clarity with which the need for infrastructure in general is set out as a matter of policy is fundamental to the utility of the NPS in the work of the examining authority and the decision-maker. The NPS assists the Examining Authority most where it is able to provide clear and unambiguous policy guidance on the weight to be attached to evidence, including impacts and mitigation measures both in general (section 6.3 on odour is a good example) and in relation to particular proposals where policy conclusions can be drawn from the Appraisal of Sustainability.

6. Conversely, an NPS risks straying from its proper role if it attempts to reach conclusions on detailed planning considerations relating to particular proposals. The locationally specific sections of this NPS will need to be reviewed with particular care to ensure that they provide a robust policy context without infringing on areas which are properly the province of the applicant or the IPC. For example, paragraph 3.1.3 does not in our view constitute policy, and the conclusions drawn in paragraphs 3.1.5 and 3.1.8 are expressed in terms which could be considered to fetter the proper exercise of judgment as to the principal issues.

7. It is important for the NPS to avoid using language which risks creating tensions with statutory provisions. At certain points in the text, for example, paragraph 5.1.1 (i) and paragraphs 6.1.3-5, the draft runs the risk of appearing to restate statutory provisions in different terms. This has no value as the terms of the statute obviously take precedence. It would be helpful if the draft was reviewed to avoid repeating or interpreting aspects of the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations.

Role of the IPC

8. We welcome the emphasis at various points in the draft NPS on effective engagement between applicants, regulatory and permitting authorities such as the Environment Agency, the Marine Management Organisation, and Natural England, and the IPC. Applicants must work closely with these regulators at the pre-application stage, and the regulators in turn must engage constructively and in a timely manner sensitive to the strict timescales Parliament has set for the IPC process. The IPC has a role in advising all parties at the pre-application stage and will assist in this engagement insofar as we can, but it is not the role of the IPC to mediate disputes or become party to any agreements between applicants and other statutory bodies. We would ask that paragraph 6.2.9 be amended accordingly.

9. The IPC’s principal role is to act as Examining Authority for major infrastructure applications, considering the evidence put before the Commissioners and weighing all important and relevant considerations in reaching a decision or recommendation. This quasi-judicial role is the same whether or not the IPC is itself the decision-maker, and will not change in this respect as a result of the Localism Bill. Guidance given to the IPC in the NPS needs to reflect accurately the nature of that role. For example, it is not appropriate for policy to suggest that the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of interested parties would be relevant to the decision on the application itself; paragraph 6.2.10 should be either deleted or amended to remove reference to the IPC’s role in assessing behaviour that might lead to withdrawal of an objection.

10. It is also important to distinguish clearly and correctly between the role of the applicant and the role of the IPC. For example:

a. It is the applicant, not the IPC, who must consult the Marine Management Organisation about potential impacts on marine areas (paragraph 5.7.5). b. It is the applicant who must consult the Health and Safety Executive and ensure that appropriate requirements relating to mitigation or limitation of nuisance are included in the draft development consent order (paragraph 5.11.2). c. It is not the role of the IPC to “encourage the conservation of [ancient woodland]” (paragraph 6.5.13).

Further assistance to applicants

11. A key role of the NPS is to provide clarity to applicants and others in relation to the appropriate approach to seeking development consent for proposals which may fall within the scope of the NPS. This may be of additional importance in the future if provisions in the Localism Bill (clause 111) which would extend the opportunities for proposed infrastructure projects to be directed to the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit become law. The need for clear policy and guidance may well reach beyond the two proposals specifically identified in the NPS.

12. Particular areas where greater assistance might be provided include:

a. Hazardous substances. In Section 5.9.of the draft, although the IPC will have power to direct that hazardous substances consent is deemed, the IPC is wrongly identified as the designated Hazardous Substances Authority, and applicants could helpfully be directed to identify uses of land in the vicinity which would assist the IPC in meeting statutory requirements for decision making. b. Associated development. It would assist applicants in particular if Government were able to offer guidance in this NPS on the type of development which it would regard as associated development to the NSIP which it is proposed to add to the waste water field. c. Flexibility. An important concern being raised with the IPC by a number of applicants is the extent to which a development consent order may or may not offer a degree of flexibility in the parameters of the authorised development. While this is ultimately a matter for the courts to determine, policy guidance from Government, such as that provided to offshore windfarm developers in the Renewable Energy NPS EN-3, assists applicants, the IPC, and other parties.

Further information

13. The Commission will be responding in similar terms, and making further points of detail, to the Government’s consultation. We would be glad to assist the Committee with any further information if requested to do so.

January 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Consumer Council for Water (CCWater) (WWnps 02)

The Consumer Council for Water (CCWater) is an independent non-departmental public body representing the interests of water and sewerage customers across England and Wales.

We have four local committees in England and a committee for Wales.

We have worked with the water industry and its regulators since 2005 to get the best results for consumers. In that time we have:

• been central to achieving the customer focused outcome from the 2009 price review, which was over £1billion better for water customers than the 2004 review. • convinced water companies to return over £135m to customers through either additional investment or keeping prices lower; • dealt with over 80,000 complaints; • returned over £10m to customers in compensation; and • cost only 23p on each water bill a year. This will reduce to 21p in 2011-12.

We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to this Efra inquiry into the proposal for a National Policy Statement (NPS) on Waste Water, published by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 16 November 2010. The NPS is a welcome basis for planning authorities to make decisions on proposed large scale waste water infrastructure, taking into account the sustainability and environmental impact of such projects.

Our evidence is provided from the perspective of the water customer, both domestic and business. It addresses the three areas of scrutiny identified by the Committee: the planning principles in the proposed NPS, the sustainability and environmental criteria underpinning the NPS, and additional issues or principles that should be addressed.

1. Executive Summary 1.1 The draft NPS for waste water will deliver an important part of the new planning regime and will help the public see how proposed major new infrastructure projects are assessed.

1.2 The draft NPS guidelines for primary consideration1 will give customers an assurance that major infrastructure proposals (such as the Thames Tideway Tunnel and Deephams Sewage Treatment Works) are subject to impact assessments.

1.3 CCWater supports the proposal that the assessments in the draft NPS must: • make clear the full environmental impacts of projects to allow challenge; • consider alternative, sustainable solutions; and

1 When the Infrastructure Planning Commission (or its successor) considers both the need for new waste water infrastructure serving over 500,000 people, and the impact of this infrastructure, both during its construction and when it is operational. 6

• consider whether the new infrastructure has a role in reducing flood risk.

1.4 In addition to that, two key approaches must be taken to demonstrate to customers the legitimacy of the decisions taken.

Involve in decisions those who will pay for new infrastructure

1.5 The NPS should emphasise the need for involving customers in the decision-making process for new infrastructure. This will help get customers’ support for potential bill increases to pay for the project. At the 2009 price review, involving customers in choices and understanding their priorities helped 84% of customers accept the impact of proposed prices on their water bill2.

Full cost-benefit analysis of the options for a project

1.6 Cost-benefit analysis of the options will allow the public to see how the cost of the scheme compares to the benefits that will be delivered. This would help get public support for the final chosen option.

1.7 A single scheme like the Thames Tideway Tunnel is likely to have a considerable impact on all of Thames Water’s sewerage customers’ bills. Customers’ willingness to pay should be considered if sewerage customers are to pay part of the cost.

1.8 This submission provides detail on the four key questions, and refers to the Thames Tideway Tunnel project as the largest single example currently available of a large waste water infrastructure project.

2. Sustainability and Environmental Criteria

2.1 CCWater welcomes the:

• environmental assessments that will be required for a new proposal; • sustainability appraisal; • inclusion of the Flood Risk Assessment.

Environmental Assessments

Full environmental impacts of projects must be clear to allow challenge

2.2 Customers will welcome the environmental assessments that will be required for a proposed project (its effects on habitats and biodiversity, landscape, air quality, carbon emissions, and water quality). CCWater’s consumer research on water

2 Customers’ views on Ofwat’s 2009 Draft Determinations http://www.ccwater.org.uk/upload/doc/Draft_Determination_Final_15_Oct_2009.doc 7

company draft Business Plans during the 2009 price review revealed that a significant proportion of consumers (average 90% across all water companies) said that the condition of their local environment was an important issue to them.3

2.3 The environmental assessments must allow the planning authority to understand the full impacts of the proposal in order to either challenge the project, or identify additional works or measures needed to mitigate these effects. The environmental impact of a large scale waste water engineering project (such as the Thames Tideway Tunnel) will be significant. Such projects have a large carbon footprint, not only during construction, but also from on-going greenhouse gas emissions associated with pumping and extra treatment processes. These full impacts must be considered.

Sustainability Appraisal

2.4 CCWater welcomes the sustainability appraisal that forms part of the statement. To get customer support for projects they will need to be assured that the cost of building and operating large waste water projects meets:

• a current need for improved waste water treatment or management; and • adequate ‘future proofing’ to ensure consumers receive a reliable and effective waste water service in the future/over the lifetime of the asset.

Alternative, sustainable solutions must be considered when planning infrastructure projects

2.5 The NPS sustainability appraisal requires the consideration of alternatives. This is consistent with other Government legislation and initiatives relating to improved management of surface water. Anna Walker’s independent review of charging for household water and sewerage charges considered the importance of managing surface water to prevent flooding and to reduce the burden on waste water infrastructure:

“Surface water drainage presents an increasing challenge, exacerbated by the heavy rainfall and flooding arising from climate change. Household customers should, over time, be incentivised to reduce the amount of surface water drainage going from their property into public (sewerage company) sewers. This aim can be achieved cost-effectively, in a way that supports the ‘polluter pays’ principle, if this service, too, is paid for by those customers who use it—that is, by those connecting their hard surfaces to the public sewers.” Anna Walker4

3 Understanding Customers’ Views – PR09 Qualitative Research into Customers’ Priorities – MVA Consultancy, February 2009 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/upload/pdf/PR09_Executive_Summary_Final_Feb_2009.pdf

4 Independent Review of Water Charging and Metering for Water and Sewerage Services – Anna Walker, December 2009 8

2.6 Research also shows that consumers are aware of the impact of surface water flooding, as this quote demonstrates:

“Climate change was allegedly a contributory factor in the flooding we had this summer.” Customer, Bristol5

2.7 Systems (SuDS) need to be considered. This could be as alternatives to large scale infrastructure, or as methods of controlling surface water that can work alongside such infrastructure (separation of surface water from combined sewers, and surface water management techniques such as landscaping or permeable surfaces). It is therefore important that major developments form part of an integrated and holistic drainage and waste water management strategy.

2.8 Surface water management solutions will not always be a solution on their own, especially in large scale urban environments. The assessment of the Thames Tideway Tunnel project shows the practical difficulties in constructing and operating surface water management solutions across London. However, surface water solutions can help alleviate pressures on waste water infrastructure, particularly where new development occurs.

Flood Risk Assessment

New infrastructure could have a role in reducing the risk of flooding

2.9 Flood Risk Assessment is important in the planning process. New waste water infrastructure should be assessed to see if it could have a role in reducing or managing the risk of flooding. It must not inadvertently contribute to it. Research on consumers’ priorities during the 2009 price setting process revealed that consumers were aware of the need to assess the capacity of any new building or infrastructure to be adequately protected against the effects of heavy rainfall:

“Some of these houses that flood with a combination of storm water and sewage have been built in areas that flood regularly” Customer, Tower Hamlets6

5 Deliberative Research concerning Consumers’ Priorities for PR09 for the Water Industry Steering Group – Corr Willbourn June 2008 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/upload/pdf/CW_PR09_Delib_Res_No_Appx_10_06_08.pdf Pg 68 6Deliberative Research concerning Consumers’ Priorities for PR09 for the Water Industry Steering Group – Corr Willbourn June 2008 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/upload/pdf/CW_PR09_Delib_Res_No_Appx_10_06_08.pdf Pg 71 9

3. Other principles in the planning process

Involve those who have to pay in the decision-making process

3.1 The criteria for judging whether a new infrastructure project is successful should include considering whether those who are paying for the project support it. A successful project is likely to have involved those who have to pay the costs in the decision-making. This would help get support and buy- in to the project.

3.2 Anna Walker’s independent review of water charging recommended that Government should consult with customers when considering investment in water or sewerage services.

“The review team recommends that there should be a new requirement on government to consult with customers before agreeing any water quality improvements which water customers will have to pay for, to set out the costs and benefits including the impact on household bills and ensure effective consultation through CC Water and any agreed customer consultation arrangements. Customers views would have to be taken into account before any commitment to expenditure was made.” 7

3.3 engagement in flood risk decisions, that:

‘The importance for local communities is having ownership of the process and the outcome as solutions based on local knowledge and ideas are far more acceptable to the community’.8

3.4 This is also shown in the Government's policy document, ‘Building the Big Society’ which states: “Only when people and communities are given more power and take more responsibility can we achieve fairness and opportunity for all.” 9

3.4 Customer consultation has a role in the draft NPS. It should be used in the range of assessments carried out when considering major new infrastructure. The Planning Inspectorate needs to consider customers’ views both on the need for the new infrastructure, and about the possible impacts. It would ensure that decisions take account of the concerns customers may have, or reveal any concerns (at a local level) not covered by the assessments. It would also demonstrate to the public that their views have been actively sought and taken into account.

7 Independent Review of Water Charging and Affordability – Anna Walker, December 2009 Paragraph 5.6.5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/industry/walkerreview/final-report.htm 8 Environment Agency – Improving community and citizen engagement in flood risk management, decision making delivery and flood response – 2005. 9 Coalition Government’s policy document – Building the Big Society 10

Conducting cost benefit analysis should be part of infrastructure development

3.5 CCWater would like to see greater emphasis in the draft NPS on the need for a robust cost benefit analysis of any proposed project. This includes a consideration of the financial impact the cost of the project may have on customers (especially lower income households). As an example, the Thames Tideway Tunnel is the biggest single sewerage project since privatisation in 1989. The current estimated cost is £3.6 billion, but cost estimates have doubled in three years, and there are no guarantees against further cost escalation.

3.6 The costs of all the Thames improvements taken together will add very significantly to the sewerage element of sewerage bills across the Thames Region not just in London. A total spend of £4.6bn (including £1bn already agreed for the Lee Tunnel and associated sewage treatment works plus design costs) will add £80 to £90 per household per year to sewerage bills by the time works on the main tunnel are complete. This is an increase in household sewerage charges of some 75% over 2010 baseline average sewerage bills.

3.7 This will be in addition to the bill impact that will arise from the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains to sewerage company ownership from October 2011. There may well be more cost increases to come because of wider European quality requirements, including those associated with the Water Framework Directive.

3.8 Customers need to be assured that the investment is justified, can be done at the lowest realistic cost, and the financial burden is fairly shared. We believe the distributional impacts of the cost of such large infrastructure projects should be given attention as part of the NPS assessments. The cost should not fall most heavily on those least able to pay. The draft NPS should include an analysis of the cost weighted against the benefits, and the willingness and ability of customers to pay for the infrastructure (if the cost is to be wholly or partly funded through sewerage bills).

3.9 Any new large scale wastewater infrastructure costs are likely to be carried by waste water customers. It is therefore important that there is a clear demonstration of value for money. Customers’ perception of value for money is lower than it needs to be for the future sustainability of the industry. CCWater's research indicates that customer satisfaction with sewerage services is 87%. But satisfaction with the value for money of sewerage services is significantly lower at 71%.10 This is roughly on a par with that of much more expensive energy services.11 Satisfaction with value for money could fall if sewerage bills increase without customers accepting the need for investment.

10 CCWater Tracking Research 2009-10 11 CCWater Annual Tracking Survey 2009-10 11

3.10 In conclusion, as the costs of major infrastructure projects are likely to fall on sewerage customers, they must be consulted and involved in the decisions. Anna Walker similarly concludes in her review12:

“The review team has therefore concluded that environmental improvements fundamentally relate to the quality of water supplied and the sewerage disposed of. As such, under the “polluter pays” principle, they are appropriate for the water customer to pay. However, this conclusion demonstrated how important it is: • For the government to ensure that whatever the challenges, diffuse pollution is paid for by the polluter, not the water customer;

• Before agreeing any new environmental improvements, governments must consult and listen to the views of customers or customers will be being asked to pay inappropriately high costs.” Anna Walker

4. Monitoring and public accountability

Public access to information on project assessments will provide greater transparency and encourage customer involvement.

4.1 There should be greater emphasis on the monitoring of scheme delivery, and public access to information relating to each scheme. The sustainability and environmental assessments complete with robust cost-benefit analysis would show customers that both the costs of the investment and their ability and willingness to pay had been properly considered.

4.2 The Thames Tideway Tunnel will be the first opportunity to make the costs of a large infrastructure project visible to the public. Such information should be made freely available, including on the web. This would enable customers to access key information and to be involved in the decision making process. This would be a welcome addition to the NPS.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The National Policy Statement (NPS) for Waste Water is a welcome basis for planning authorities to make decisions on proposed large scale waste water infrastructure.

5.2 Overall, CCWater would like to see greater emphasis in the NPS for:

• full environmental impacts of projects to be clear to allow challenge; • alternative, sustainable solutions to be considered when planning infrastructure projects;

12 Independent Review of Water Charging and Affordability – Anna Walker, December 2009 Paragraph 5.6.5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/industry/walkerreview/final-report.htm 12

• new infrastructure to be assessed for a role in reducing flood risk; • cost-benefit analysis of the infrastructure proposals to measure the value of a project against the cost paid by customers; • involvement and consultation with those who will pay for the project; and • public access to information on project assessments will provide greater transparency and encourage customer involvement.

January 2011

Written evidence submitted by Thames Water (WWnps 03)

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 NPS13.

13 Consultation document on a Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water; p.11 14

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 so14. 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.

14 Regulatory Impact Assessment – Sewage Collection and Treatment for London - March 2007; paragraph 8.3 15

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 guidance15 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 1 and 5 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.

15 Letter from Communities and Local Government Chief Planner Steve Quartermain to Chief Planning Officers - 9 November 2009 16

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

Written evidence submitted by Water UK (WWnps 04)

Executive Summary

1. Water UK represents all UK water and wastewater suppliers at national and European level. We provide a positive framework for the industry to engage 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 made 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 criteria for “good design”, as set out in 5.5, may compromise the vital requirements of functionality, accessibility and safe operation, and disproportionately increase customer costs.

* Meeting the 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, in 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. -3 In most cases a standard of 1.5 ouE.m 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 an awareness of the issues 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

Written evidence submitted by Ofwat (WWnps 05)

Executive summary

The draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water has been published under the Planning Act 2008. The Act and the draft statement set out the criteria for nationally significant infrastructure, which is to be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission or its successor body. This is intended to avoid delays in delivering this infrastructure that the existing planning process causes.

The threshold for waste water projects is set very high. It will only apply to sewage treatment works that serve more than 500,000 people. Given this high threshold, very few projects will be covered. In fact, only one project of the £12 billion of capital investment in sewerage assets over the next five years is expected to meet these criteria.

The Secretary of State will also be able to use the planning process provided for in the 2008 Act for other projects considered to be of national significance. It is not clear what criteria will be applied when considering which of the additional projects that do not meet the criteria set out in the Act will be included. We would welcome clarity on this issue. At present, the only such additional project to be included is the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

For more than 20 years, our regulation of the water and sewerage sectors in England and Wales has ensured that critical infrastructure is effectively delivered at an efficient, low cost to customers. This has been achieved by providing the stability required to allow the companies to raise affordable finance and by regulating to reward efficiency.

This has meant that the companies have been able to invest both to maintain the levels of service expected of them and to make required improvements and increase capacity. Since privatisation in 1989, the companies have invested about £90 billion, with about £46 billion invested in sewerage alone. Through the double benefit of affordable capital and efficiency incentives, customers’ bills are about a third lower than they would otherwise have been, saving the average household £110 each year.

As the economic regulator we regularly set price limits for the companies. These limits cap the amount companies can charge their customers and set out the outcomes that they must deliver. During this process companies outline their plan for the maintenance and enhancement of their assets. This is known as the asset management plan or AMP. At the last price review in 2009, we approved plans for about £22 billion of investment between 2010 and 2015, including about £6 billion for maintenance of sewerage assets alone.

During the price review process, we examine and challenge the companies’ overall programmes and their necessity, but we do not generally approve specific schemes. Rather, it is for companies to decide the most efficient and appropriate way to meet their objectives and targets. Just because a scheme is listed in a company’s asset management plan, it should not

be assumed that we have agreed that it must be done or that we specifically approve of the approach that a company favours. A misinterpretation of our role in the statement would be very unhelpful and could prevent the Infrastructure Planning Commission from applying its own rigorous scrutiny to schemes.

The draft statement also considers the factors that might lead to the development of new waste water infrastructure. In general, these drivers are well considered. But there is scope to include greater consideration of the need for improved resilience—both from natural and man-made disasters—in the sewerage network.

The statement should also include a more balanced approach to other drivers, particularly the age of the existing network. Age is not necessarily a good indicator of the need for replacement. Rather, it is more important to understand the condition of the existing assets before a decision is made to replace or improve them. For example, Victorian sewers constructed to a high standard may be in a better condition than those constructed after World War II. So, the Infrastructure Planning Commission should not simply rely on age when making decisions.

Many projects that the companies carry out are to meet environmental requirements. For example, they may be needed to reduce pollution or ensure that damage caused by changes in climate is reduced. These requirements can sometimes lead to delicate balancing decisions being made, particularly when considering climate change mitigation and adaptation. It is important that the statement recognises that measures to adapt to climate change—for example, the Thames Tideway—can have significant carbon impacts which may undermine mitigation efforts.

When considering infrastructure in the water and sewerage sectors, it is essential to remember that it is customers who have to pay for any maintenance and improvements through higher bills. As such, the full costs and benefits of any investment should be carefully considered. This is particularly relevant if the planning process imposes specific requirements, such as the need for ‘good design’ in the draft statement.

The need to protect customers from bill increases caused by unnecessary, wasteful or inefficient development is one of our primary concerns as we exercise our function to protect consumers.

Introduction

1. We welcome the draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water (‘the statement’), which has been published under the Planning Act 2008.

2. As the economic regulator for the monopoly water and sewage sectors in England and Wales, we are responsible for setting price limits that enable the companies to meet their customers’ needs by financing efficient capital and operating expenditure. Between now

and 2015, the companies will invest about £12 billion in sewerage assets alone (from a total of £22 billion for the period for which current price limits apply). This will help to maintain and enhance sewerage assets to meet the challenges of new water quality legislation, climate change and population growth.

3. It is very important that the appropriate planning processes are in place. This will allow the appropriate parties to make effective and timely decisions on significant investment in this essential infrastructure.

4. Because we do not approve individual schemes, it is not appropriate for us to make assumptions about when assets should be replaced based on our price limit settlement. We recommend that the statement examines each relevant scheme on its merits.

5. The 500,000 the population equivalent threshold set out in the Planning Act 2008 is high. This restricts the number of waste water schemes that are applicable using the statement. In fact, proposals for just one sewage treatment works (Deephams) meets this criterion for the five-year period for which we set price limits in November 2009.

6. As the draft statement recognises, the Thames Tideway scheme does not meet the criteria in the legislation. There are two reasons for this—it does not meet the population equivalent threshold set out in the Act and it is not a treatment project. Including this project raises questions about the criteria the Secretary of State will use when determining which types of scheme (other than those as set out in the legislation) will be considered using the statement. We would welcome greater clarity on the types of schemes which may be covered in the future.

7. We have comments on a number of specific questions set out in the consultation, which are set out below. We also have some general comments on the criteria as set out in the Planning Act 2008 and the draft statement. We do not address questions that we consider are not relevant to our role. As with the draft statement itself, where we refer to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) our comments will be equally applicable to the successor body.

Response to consultation questions

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?

8. The draft statement sets out the need for nationally significant waste water infrastructure projects by identifying the main drivers of the required investment.

9. We would suggest adding resilience to the list of drivers. This is because of the potential need to extend or improve the companies’ existing assets so that levels of service can be maintained (either fully or in part) in the event of flooding or some other disaster.

10. While the need for nationally significant projects exists, justification is on the merits of each case. The statement should not make or imply assumptions about asset lives and replacement needs based on our price limit settlements.

11. We expect each company to properly maintain and manage its assets in the most economic and efficient manner. It is their responsibility to identify, prioritise and carry out the necessary work to ensure that they do this.

12. We mainly use our annual serviceability assessments to hold the companies to account. This ensures that the assets remain fit for purpose for both customers today and future generations.

13. Since privatisation in 1989, the water and sewerage sectors have invested substantially to improve and maintain their assets, as well as to meet the requirements of new water quality legislation. Investment to maintain service and environmental performance has risen in recent years. As part of the £12 billion that the companies will invest in sewerage between now and 2015, about £6 billion will be spent on maintenance—an increase of some 44% in real terms.

14. Our assessments show that sewerage assets in England and Wales are stable in more companies then ever before. But we are not complacent. That is why we allowed for this investment in the sewerage service at the last price review to maintain the stable position for the next five years. We expect that continuing investment of this order will be needed to maintain existing assets.

15. A key issue for sewers is capacity in the networks. This requires high-quality routine maintenance to ensure the sewers are kept clear so that the waste water can flow freely. Cases for sealing sewers against infiltration (which takes up significant capacity) occur occasionally, but they have rarely featured prominently in the companies’ business plans.

16. The main issue that determines the levels of re-investment is the overall rate of deterioration and the effect this has on the service capability of the assets concerned. This should be reflected in the statement. Specifically, the companies seek the optimum level needed to offset the rate of deterioration to maintain service to customers both now and in the future.

17. This requires two things—an understanding of where deterioration is taking place and a forecast of the impact of that deterioration if there is no re-investment in the assets. Price reviews provide the companies with the opportunity to present the case for re-investment. They are expected to use the industry-standard risk-based ‘common framework’ approach to capital maintenance planning.

18. The draft statement contains several references to ‘old’ and ‘Victorian’ infrastructure. This implies that significant levels of re-investment are needed simply because of the age of some of the assets. But, while significant re-investment is and will continue to be required, the age of infrastructure is generally a poor indicator of need.

19. Section 2.3.2 of the draft statement says that:

“most of the combined sewer stock is old and vulnerable to infiltration of groundwater, levels of which may vary in response to rainfall events. Without further investment in sewerage systems, we can expect to experience more frequent overflows from CSOs which could potentially lead to water quality and flooding problems if adequate investment in sewage systems is not made.”

Section 2.3.7 says that

“there is also a need to maintain older infrastructure, some of which dates back to Victorian times, and where appropriate, undertake end of life cycle replacement, particularly in large towns and cities.”

20. At the 2009 price review, only 16% of sewers in England and Wales were reported as Victorian. London has a larger proportion with about 21%. But it would be wrong to assume that there is a simple correlation between the age of the assets and the point at which it needs replacing.

21. Age reflects the degree of exposure to deteriorating agents. This includes:

• the ground conditions where pipes are laid: • ground movement; • traffic volumes; and • the corrosiveness or abrasiveness of the liquids carried.

22. The focus is on addressing the utility or service that the sewerage networks provide.

23. So, it follows that location is the key factor that affects the rate of deterioration of individual sewers. It also determines the point when they require maintaining or replacing. Some larger assets—such as brick sewers that are large enough to walk through—can also be maintained in an appropriate condition through regular inspection and repair.

24. Some parts of these extensive networks last for longer than others and continue to provide satisfactory service. Regardless of age, sewers that perform badly are usually fixed through repair, refurbishment or renewal. The better ones have lasted. Many Victorian assets, such as the large brick sewers, perform better than uPVC (plastic) ones built after 1945. So, having ‘Victorian’ assets can be either a good or a bad thing depending on how they 27

perform now, and, as with all other assets irrespective of age, their performance going forward.

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?

25. It is important to understand that including a particular scheme in a company's asset management plan does not necessarily mean that we have approved of that individual plan or how it should be carried out. Each company uses its asset management plan to set out its future investment needs to ensure they can deliver the services they are required to provide and the improvements required of them.

26. We challenge and scrutinise each company’s plan. But they are also free to find more efficient, economic or sustainable solutions during the five-year period. They can also plan and implement additional schemes, for which we have made no allowance when we set price limits.

27. In fact, most of the companies’ investment plans are not specific to particular schemes. Of the £22 billion that the companies will invest between 2010 and 2015, about £13 billion is for capital maintenance of which about £6 billion is for sewerage services. This is not specific to particular schemes, and it is for each company to determine how it will deliver its investment plans within our price limit assumptions.

28. In a few cases (called ‘exceptional items’), we will set a specific output. This is relatively uncommon and not in the public domain. It would be for the company to advise the IPC if we were treating one of its schemes as an exceptional item.

29. Our price limits also allow for service enhancements and additional capacity for growth. While we challenge these needs through the price review process, the spending assumption is at company level and is not necessarily scheme specific. In some cases, we set the objectives—for example, the service enhancement to reduce the risk of flooding from sewers. It is the companies’ responsibility to determine its priorities and the work required to achieve them.

30. In short, just because a company lists a scheme in its asset management plan, it should not be assumed that we have agreed that it must be done or that we specifically approve of the approach that the company favours. We (and others) set the outcomes that the company must deliver. Decisions on what work is needed is a matter for the company.

31. So, we would expect the IPC to consider applications in this context. We would also expect it to examine and challenge (if necessary) the supporting evidence. The IPC must satisfy itself of the need and scope of the particular projects proposed in each case, rather than assuming this has been done as part of the price review process.

32. The draft statement refers to population growth and urbanisation as a driver for new infrastructure. We think that while large-scale development will require new infrastructure, growth from existing customers, infill and increased impermeable areas can be addressed at a local level. Local enhancements to the existing infrastructure can make better use of existing capacity. This may include works to exclude or reduce the impact of surface water from the sewerage system.

33. We are also concerned that the draft statement does not outline the extent to which the IPC should challenge the underlying information it receives. This is particularly significant for information that is supposed to justify the need, timing and scope of projects put forward. For example, it is not clear how much the IPC will challenge the underlying basis supporting any forecasting, including any surrounding uncertainties.

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?

34. Despite efforts to mitigate climate change, past emissions will inevitably lead to further changes to the environment and the climate. We think that any consideration of schemes and possible alternatives should consider the long-term uncertainty and risks of future climate change. We have explored this further in our response to question 6.5 below.

35. We also believe that the statement should make it clear that any appraisal of alternatives should consider the carbon impact from both operational and embedded emissions. The scope for energy and carbon savings of any alternatives should be made explicit.

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?

36. The draft statement emphasises the importance of good aesthetic design. It states that, while regard should be made to regulatory and other constraints, developments should be “as attractive… as they can be”. In principle, we consider that decisions on whether to impose stringent planning requirements on treatment works should rest with Government rather than local planning authorities and the water companies. It follows that the IPC should have this responsibility in the case of nationally significant infrastructure.

37. Stringent requirements are those that would result in substantial costs over and above those for more conventional solutions that have been tailored to reasonable local needs. Although the benefits of visually appealing development will accrue to those living and working in the immediate vicinity, it is the entire customer base of the relevant water company that bears the cost in the form of higher bills.

38. For this reason, if a company wants the costs arising from stringent planning requirements to be recognised in price limits, either at a price review or in an interim determination, we require it to challenge the planning authority’s decision. In such circumstances, we would regard the reasonable net additional costs associated with the Secretary of State’s final decision as a ‘relevant change of circumstance’.

39. There are some particular examples of how high the costs of planning requirements to improve the aesthetics of a waste water development can be. In 2002, enclosing a new sewage treatment works in the Anglian region to eliminate odour reportedly cost about 50% more than that of an open works. Even though the population equivalent served by the works was only 66,000—barely 13% of the threshold at which the Statement applies— the total cost of the project was reported to be £76.3 million. The ongoing operational and maintenance costs of this sewage treatment works was also far higher than normal. This is because of the need to deal with the toxic and corrosive effects of the atmosphere contained within the structure.

40. The delayed Brighton sewage treatment works (discussed in more detail below) provides a more recent example. Here, landscaping requirements involving earthworks and a planning requirement for a ‘green roof‘ imposed in 2008 have added approximately £50 million to the cost of the new treatment works under construction.

41. So, we think that unqualified statements in the guidance such as “the development should… be as visually attractive as possible” could lead to confusion. In light of the high cost of stringent planning requirements, we consider that references to “other constraints“ in section 5.5.2 should be strengthened significantly. We think that the statement should be explicit in requiring the IPC to have regard to the affordability of aspects of the design driven by aesthetics and to weigh the associated costs against the benefits.

42. Section 5.12 of the statement considers national security issues. But it does not discuss the Cabinet Office’s recent work on the protection of critical national infrastructure from natural hazards. We think this is relevant as security is much wider than just protection from physical attacks. The statement would benefit from referencing the Cabinet Office’s guidance.

43. The guidance was issued for regulators in the form of a strategic framework and policy statement in March 2010. This recommended standards for protecting critical national infrastructure against extreme flood events. There are similarities between the definition of critical national infrastructure and the definition of infrastructure under consideration in the draft Statement. So, it would be sensible to ensure that the standards the Cabinet Office recommended are considered as part of the statement.

44. Innovation can often reduce the unfavourable aesthetic impacts of waste water infrastructure, as well as helping to control costs. We think it would be helpful to test the scope for innovation—and economic ‘good’—by asking how much of the proposal comes

from employing traditional means and the extent to which it improves the environment or productivity by applying a new process or positive management action.

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?

Mitigation

45. The consideration of climate change mitigation through reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the draft statement could be strengthened. The overarching context only describes a policy instrument that may not be relevant to the sewerage sector in England and Wales.

46. The draft statement refers to the objective to “help deliver the UK’s obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and work to carbon budgets stemming from the Climate Change Act 2008, within the context of the EU Emissions Trading System”. This is a Europe-wide cap and trade scheme where companies are obliged to purchase allowances for the emissions for which they are responsible. But the scheme only covers half of the UK’s emissions and most water company sites are not covered by it. We are surprised that there is no discussion of other policy instruments that incentivise emissions reduction.

47. We think that the treatment of mitigation in the statement would benefit from a much clearer link between the Government’s overall objectives and the specific objectives for waste water. The link could be made through reference to Departmental Adaptation Plans (DAP). In this case it is Defra’s DAP which includes emissions from waste water.

48. There is also no discussion of embedded (embodied) emissions in the draft statement. This is an important issue because:

• embedded emissions are large for the water and sewerage sectors—making up about a third of the total. This accounts for about 0.4% of the UK’s total emissions; and • large asset-intensive projects, such as the Thames Tideway, have significant embedded emissions associated with them which can run contrary to wider environmental objectives.

49. We discuss these issues further in our response to question 6.10.

Adaptation

50. As mentioned above, we think that it would be prudent to test all the options that are under consideration against future climate change scenarios. Carrying out this exercise

could reveal that some options are actually more ‘climate proof‘ than others in the face of future extreme weather events.

51. It is also recommended that ‘critical design features‘ of the preferred solution should be tested against radical changes in climate that lie outside of the UKCP09 scenarios. This could prove to be a very difficult task to carry out as the science in this area is continually changing and improving.

52. Also, this exercise may be unnecessary as there could be far greater non-weather related risks to the infrastructure that are not being specifically scrutinised. We think that it would make more sense to apply a risk-based approach to whether more radical climate scenarios are used.

53. As a result, we think that the recommendations to look at both UKCP09 and more radical climate change scenarios send out mixed messages. It would add clarity to recommend one key source of climate change data.

54. We also think that consideration of climate change adaptation measures would benefit from including the ‘adaptation pathways‘ approach (that the UK Climate Impacts Programme has promoted). This approach involves testing the robustness of solutions against a variety of future climate change scenarios and considering what adaptation measures could be applied at various points in time to cope with pressures. This would help to highlight the potential adjustments and levels of flexibility that apply to the chosen option.

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?

55. One of the key objections to sewage works is the level of odour that can come from them. This can be mitigated to some extent, but at a cost. While the draft statement requires the companies to consider odour, we think it would be helpful to provide guidance on what is to be regarded as reasonable levels of odour control. The guidance should also consider the proximity to residential and industrial premises.

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?

56. See our response to question 6.6 above.

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?

57. As we discussed in the introduction, the criteria that must be met for infrastructure to be included in the statement means that very few schemes are likely to be eligible. Had this statement been in place at privatisation in 1989, it is unlikely that more than one or two of the several thousand waste water treatment projects since then would have been included in it. So, it would appear that the statement has no implications for most of the investment programmes that the companies have carried out. It would also appear that any benefits brought about by the statement are largely theoretical.

58. One of the principal aims of the statement is to “remove the need for lengthy planning inquiries on fundamental policy questions at the application stage”. But, the implication of the population equivalent threshold is that the existence of such a statement would have done nothing, for example, to accelerate the delivery of the long-delayed construction of the Brighton & Hove sewage treatment works, which will serve a population equivalent of about 300,000. We now expect completion of this scheme in 2013, some 13 years after the legal deadline in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations. This scheme is the subject of current infraction proceedings by the European Commission against the UK because of the protracted delay.

59. As we have already noted, in future the Secretary of State may wish to add types of schemes that do not strictly qualify under the criteria. Greater clarity on the assessment criteria likely to be used in these circumstances is essential.

Question 6.9: Do you think that the Government should formally approve (“Designate”) the draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water?

60. Subject to our comments in this consultation response, it would be appropriate for Ministers to approve a National Policy Statement for Waste Water under the requirements of the Planning Act 2008.

Appraisal of sustainability report

Question 6.10: Do you believe that the appraisal identified the likely significant sustainability effects associated with the draft Waste Water NPS? If not, what effects do you feel are not correctly identified and why?

61. We think that combining climate change adaptation and mitigation together risks making a fair appraisal very difficult. Combining the two could be counter-productive, with the positives and negatives cancelling each other out. This is clearly the case for the specific assessments of the Deephams sewage treatment works and the Thames Tideway, where positive adaptation impacts hide the negative mitigation impacts. The sustainability assessment would be greatly improved if climate change adaptation and mitigation were split into separate categories.

62. This is illustrated in section 5.3 of the sustainability assessment where it states that “there are no significant adverse effects identified”. This is clearly not the case for climate change mitigation where a large increase in operational and embedded emissions is associated with the schemes. But when the assessment methodology impact is applied, this negative impact is shrouded by the positive adaptation benefits.

63. The appraisal of sustainability report contains no discussion of the trade-offs that have to be made between improving local environment quality, through meeting standards set by European Directives, and global environmental damage from greenhouse gas emissions. This is a strategic level issue and we think that the statement is an appropriate place to set out these key issues and make recommendations on how to balance them in a sustainable way. We are concerned that this may be a significant omission from the sustainability assessment.

64. In the full sustainability assessment (Annex 3c, E1.7), it states that:

“Consideration should be given to making explicit the requirement for on-site renewable energy provision up to 2020 and beyond including through the use of obligations. In addition, policy wording could be included to give favourable consideration to new development that incorporates the use of leading edge renewable energy technologies.”

65. Clearly, while the statement should not block carbon reduction measures it is important to note that the companies have a range of options available to them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. It may not be the most beneficial solution to carry these out as part of schemes that the statement is considering.

66. It also may not be appropriate to use certain technologies in some situations. So, we do not recommend that statement includes wording to encourage specific solutions. This may give the impression that it is “picking winners” when it comes to technology selection.

67. In the summary for climate change for the TT (Annex 3.c E1.7.2) it states:

“However, there are likely to be negative effects in relation to an increase in emissions from traffic during both the construction and operation of the scheme (as summarised under the air quality objective).”

68. In the air quality objective it is clear that greenhouse gas emission are not included in the discussion. Therefore, the above text, given its position in the climate change section, may be misleading as it gives the impression that more consideration of greenhouse gas emissions takes place elsewhere, when it does not seem to.

Question 6.14. Do you agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the Report of the Appraisal of Sustainability of the draft Waste Water NPS?

69. As discussed above in our response to question 6.10, we think that the consideration of climate change mitigation is incomplete. We recommend that climate change adaptation and mitigation are treated separately in the appraisal of sustainability report.

January 2011

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 36

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:

Borough Estimated population (thousands) 2006 2011 2031 Increase 2006- 31 Barnet 323.9 332.1 412.1 88.2 Enfield 287.9 292.9 298.1 10.2 Haringey 230.3 240.6 274.2 43.9 Waltham Forest 223.0 229.2 248.9 25.9 Total 1065.1 1094.8 1233.3 168.2

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

Written evidence submitted by the London Councils (WWnps 07)

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 i.e. 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

Written evidence submitted by the Environment Agency (WWnps 08)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee for National Policy Statements (NPSs) and accompanying Appraisals of Sustainability (AoS), and for all applications that will be made to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) for Development Consent Orders.

1.2 We are the Government’s environmental regulator for the water industry and will be responsible for issuing environmental permits and other consents for projects seeking IPC consent.

1.3 We are a statutory consultee for Scoping Opinions for the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) that will accompany most IPC pre-applications, and for any related Environmental Statements (ES) that will accompany the full applications. We are the competent authority for the Water Resources EIA Regulations.

1.4 We are the competent authority for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive WFD. The Directive aims to protect and improve the water environment. The NPS will help to achieve WFD objectives.

1.5 We welcome the advice the draft NPSs give the IPC on how to assess applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) and the advice they give applicants on the need for pre-application consultation with us.

1.6 The draft Waste Water NPS sets out a policy framework for considering applications for development consents for waste water NSIPs. Defra has identified two projects which have been assessed as required to meet the need for new waste water infrastructure. These are the Thames Tunnel and a sewage treatment works scheme at Deephams, North London.

1.7 As one of Defra’s Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB) we are working closely with them on the development of the Waste Water NPS. Our Thames Region is working with Thames Water on the two projects identified in the draft NPS.

1.8 We welcome the generic requirement for local planning authorities to have regard to NPSs when preparing their plans at a local level and we would urge local planning authorities to afford considerable weight to the wastewater NPS when making decisions on planning applications for developments that fall below the Development Consent Order thresholds. Whilst the focus of all NPSs is rightly on the nationally important infrastructure projects, the clear statements and interpretations of Government Policy in the NPSs and AoSs are relevant to the smaller schemes that are subject to local authority determination.

2.0 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

2.1 The National Environment Programme (NEP) as mentioned in the Waste Water NPS is a programme of actions which water companies need to complete to meet their environmental obligations under the water companies’ 5 yearly price review periods. It includes actions to improve the quality of water that is discharged from sewage treatment to either rivers or the sea, prevent chemicals from entering groundwater and ensure that abstraction of water does not adversely impact on habitats which are protected by law.

2.2 The NEP is based on Government Guidance (the Statement of Obligations published by Defra in December 2007). Over 96 per cent of the NEP for the water company investment period 2010 to 2015 (PR09) is based on statutory obligations, which are derived from European and national legislation. For example European legislation such as the WFD, Urban Waste Water Directive, the Bathing Waters Directive and the Habitats Directive. The other requirements are made up of measures related to Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP) and local priorities.

2.3 We draw up the NEP, using the government guidance and working closely with individual water companies and other government bodies such as Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

2.4 We have worked hard to ensure that every environmental improvement included in the NEP is one which is necessary, will address a known problem and is based on evidence that action is required. This should ensure that any necessary increases in bills are kept to a minimum as companies will only be taking action where this is vital.

2.5 To ensure this we have taken a strong, evidence based approach to developing the NEP. For example, to identify a Water Quality (WQ) improvement scheme and include it for action in the PR09 NEP, we have used the following criteria:

• a failure of a priority WQ objective (for example the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive); or • there are other requirements as a result of designation or other measures under a Directive such as the Fresh Water Fish Directive; or • a proposed increase in the discharge flow limit that would result in failure of a WQ objective; • there is a link to a water company discharge

2.6 For Water Resources our final proposals only included items that are ‘certain’, that is:

• Habitats Directive schemes where a ‘definite’ sustainability change (this is where the required reduction in the volume of water that can be abstracted is known through investigation and options appraisal) was identified to the water company as part of the Water Resource Management Planning process at the end of August 2008. 49

• Options Appraisals that have been confirmed by an Investigation. • Investigations where we are able to provide reasonable justification of the link between the water company abstraction and site condition.

2.7 Where there is insufficient evidence to require a scheme within the NEP but there is evidence of the potential impact of water company activities on the environment we have required an investigation within the NEP.

2.8 We believe that water companies should pay for investigations into the impacts of their assets because we would expect a well run company to understand and manage its impact on the environment.

2.9 In addition, the advantage of an investigation is that it will allow confirmation that a water company is, or is not, having an impact on a certain issue or area. Where it is having an impact, the better understanding of the impact should allow the development of a more cost effective solution.

2.10 We expect water companies to include 100 per cent of the NEP in their final business plans. We work with Ofwat to agree the programme with them; they then ensure that companies are funded to meet their environmental obligations. This will ensure that the companies meet their statutory obligations and that the environment is improved. We have discussed all the NEP measures with water companies to ensure that they are aware of, and understand the obligations. This should have enabled them to present the most cost effective solution to meet these requirements.

2.11 We also work with government and water companies on deciding when these improvements have to take place. They are normally spread across the five-year Asset Management Plan (AMP) period, ensuring, where legislation allows, that the costs are spread over the five year period, or occasionally longer.

2.12 Both of the two NSIPs included in the Wastewater NPS are NEP schemes, (Thames Tideway Tunnels and Deephams).

2.13 The work for Thames Tideway Tunnels relates to fulfilling the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Completion date is March 2020

2.14 Work at Deephams STW relates to a number of drivers. Phosphorus reduction is required under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Improvements with ammonia removal are associated with the Fresh Water Fish Directive and Water Framework Directive (WFD). Improvements for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and dissolved oxygen (DO) are required under the WFD for both final effluent and storm tank discharge arrangements. Final overall completion date for the improvements is March 2017.

3.0 LIASON WITH OFWAT

3.1 Since privatisation in 1989, increases in water industry prices have been determined in reviews conducted by the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat). In November 2009, Ofwat set limits on prices for the period 2010 to 2015.

3.2 The Environment Agency advises on all parts of water companies’ business plans which affect the current and future natural environment.

3.3 Our priorities for PR09 were, and for the resultant water company Asset Management Plans (AMP5) (2010 to 2015) are:

• A resilient water and sewerage infrastructure; • Delivery of the NEP which meets statutory obligations; • The right balance of water supply and demand by use of the twin track approach, where sufficient reductions in demand management are funded alongside the development of new resources; and • That climate change adaptation and mitigation are adequately taken into account within the long term plans of the water companies.

3.4 We welcome the moves that Ofwat, Defra and WAG have made to improve transparency and clarity within the periodic review process. These included:

• Setting the 2009 Periodic Review within a 25 year context. Each water company has developed a Strategic Direction Statement (SDS) which sets out priorities for the next five years of funding within a twenty five year view. This helps to ensure that companies are explicitly considering the longer term needs and requirements of their customers and the environment as well as the shorter term action which is required. • Early publication of guidance by Defra and WAG. This set out clearly the requirements on water companies and regulators, giving greater certainty to water companies of their responsibilities. It has enabled the Environment Agency to identify those areas where action is required within the National Environment Programme (NEP) early in the process, thus giving the companies sufficient time to identify the most cost effective solution to meet these requirements. • The establishment of the Senior Co-ordinators and Chief Executive Groups representing Ofwat, Defra, WAG, Consumer Council for Water, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. This has enabled close working between all parties at a national level and ensured early action to address issues as they arose. • Commissioning of joint customer research between those listed above and Water UK, which sought to establish a clear and shared understanding of the views of customers on the priorities for the water industry and associated investment. • Formation of local liaison groups for each water company involving the Environment Agency, Consumer Council for Water, Natural England and Ofwat. These have 51

enabled close working between all parties at a local level, substantial debate on the specifics of water company proposals and ensured early action to address issues as they arose.

• The publication of Ofwat’s view on companies’ draft business plans (DBPs) in December 2008. The companies were given the opportunity to address any challenges made and provide more robust evidence to support the proposals and costs in their final business plans (FBPs). We believe that the plans that were delivered are more robust as a result.

3.5 We have identified the following areas where further improvements to transparency could be delivered, and are working with Ofwat and water companies to address them:

• The presentation of the information available in the public domain on companies’ business plans. A clearer consistent presentation of all supporting information within the public summaries, to aid understanding, would be welcomed. A common understanding of the proposals within future plans would allow a better informed public debate.

• Ofwat has required companies to do a cost benefit analysis of all components of their proposed investment programme. We understand the benefit of water companies’ plans maximising the benefits and minimising the costs for customers. As nearly all the environmental improvements we require are statutory we have worked with Ofwat to ensure that companies have chosen the most cost-effective options to meet these statutory improvements.

• There is a mismatch in timetables between the processes for Periodic Reviews, Water Framework Directive (WFD) River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs). Although all parties are working to manage the processes and their interaction, it will be highly beneficial to find a way of aligning these in the future.

• We are concerned that we are not seeing a good use of water resources in the South- East mainly because water companies are not sharing and planning in an integrated way. We have formed a Water Resources in the SE Group to help coordinate integrated water resource planning but we have not seen the outputs from this work reflected in current WRMPs to date.

4.0 PLANNING FUNCTIONS

4.1 The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee in the planning process for NSIPs, and in the review of any associated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultation.

4.2 In order to manage applications effectively as they come forward we have set up an IPC Co-ordination Group to co-ordinate our work on IPC projects. This includes representatives from across the Environment Agency’s functions.

4.3 The group acts as the principal point of contact between the IPC and the Environment Agency. After the IPC transfers it functions under the Planning Inspectorate the group will continue to work with the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit on these projects. The IPC Co-ordination Group:

• ensures there is consistency between our planning and permitting regimes • monitors progress with applications to the IPC, together with workloads, staffing and resources • delivers internal training, develops good practice and provides other written support tools as required • ensures consistency in our responses to documents received for comment from the IPC

4.4 When individual proposals are received from the IPC the consultation will be dealt with by Environment Agency Area Planning Liaison teams in the usual manner of providing advice and guidance on the proposals. As well as providing a single point of contact, in more complex cases we may appoint a project manager and team to handle consultations.

4.5 The promoter of a particular proposal has a duty to consult Local Authorities, statutory consultees and affected members of the public prior to submitting their application to the IPC. This includes cases where an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required.

5.0 REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

5.1 We are the Government’s environmental regulator for the water industry.

5.2 A key aspect of streamlining the planning process under the IPC regime is the introduction of a new type of planning consent called a 'Development Consent Order' (DCO), which allows applicants to apply simultaneously for a range of permissions and consents previously obtained separately.

5.3 This does not however include permissions or consents for subsequent regulation of the infrastructure where they are required, for example, under Environmental Permitting. These may include bespoke or standard permits or registered exemptions for:

Activities subject to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive., e.g. sludge Incineration Activities subject to the Waste Framework Directive, e.g. reception at wastewater treatment works of trade waste in tankers

Use of radioactive substances (non –nuclear activities regulated under Radioactive Substances legislation) e.g. laboratory chemical or flow sensors Discharges to surface waters , e.g. final effluent and storm tank discharges, and Discharges to groundwaters, e.g. effluent to soakaway.

5.4 This means applicants must also apply direct to the Environment Agency for any permits or exemptions that we authorise, as well as applying to the IPC.

5.5 We encourage potential applicants for DCOs to engage in early discussions with us, and to make an application as early as possible for any Environment Agency permit that will be necessary for the proposed development.

January 2011

Supplementary written evidence from the Environment Agency (WWnps 08a)

For some years Building Regulations have required that for most new developments a foul- only sewer is provided and surface water runoff is managed as sustainably as possible; discharge to a sewer being the last resort if other more sustainable options have been shown not to be feasible. Once the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 is implemented this approach will be further strengthened, by requiring surface water drainage to be approved by the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) approving body, usually unitary and county councils, as meeting SuDS National Standards before construction can commence. Once constructed, the approving body will be under a duty to adopt and maintain those SuDS, which serve more than one property.

Retrofitting sustainable surface water management infrastructure to heavily urbanised areas is enormously challenging. In redevelopment, when surface water discharge to a combined sewer proves the only current feasible option for the portion of the flow that cannot be infiltrated locally, drainage can be separated to foul pipes and surface water pipes with discharge of both pipes to the combined sewer. Should a separate surface water discharge destination become available in future, the surface water discharge from the redevelopment can be connected to it. This is provided for in the Water Industry Act section 116 and Building Regulations Approved Doc H. Re-direction as a mechanism has rarely, if ever, been used. To date there has been insufficient incentive for the sewerage undertaker or developer to cease the surface water connection to the combined sewer and direct the surface water to an alternative destination. One of the challenges will be to deal with any misconnections to the surface system, prior to directing to a surface water sewer or SuDS.

The changes to law in the Floods and Water Management Act 2010, when implemented, should ensure that when surface water sewer connections are made the impact on the capacity in the receiving combined sewer is limited such that, overflows from the combined sewer will not increase excessively or cause an overall deterioration of water quality, or increase in fluvial flood risk elsewhere.

Pressures such as population growth, climate change increases in rainfall, necessarily tight environmental standards, unacceptable risk of sewer flooding, and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from pumping and treatment, now combine to encourage the removal of surface water sewer discharges that are currently made into combined sewers. The Environment Agency is leading a Defra sponsored Research Project into assessing the costs and benefits of SuDS retrofit. We expect this to follow the 'Paying for Ecosystem Services' approach advocated by the Defra Natural Value Programme. We are also supporting another Defra project led by Ciria providing guidance on how, what and where to retrofit SuDS.

February 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group (WWnps 09)

Overview

The Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group agrees that it is important to have a good waste water infrastructure.

It is essential, however, the decision-making process does not lose sight of the fine detail of any large scale project. A full and proper assessment must be carried out, using a sound methodology, and should be subjected to the scrutiny of a third party. There should not be any unnecessary destruction of the environment. London’s green spaces are vital both for environmental and for social reasons, and they should only be damaged or destroyed by any project as a last resort. The WW NPS should include appropriate provisions to ensure this.

Whilst DEFRA’s WW NPS consultation does not deal with specific sites for the Thames Tunnel, it is important that it receives the input of local communities so that it understands the severe impact on them and on the environment from the existing plans. We need to ensure that the WW NPS is sufficiently robust so that the decision-making body can undertake its assessment with accurate and complete information.

Under the current process for the Thames Tunnel the applicant is proposing to use at least one green space on the basis of inaccurate and incomplete information and without providing full or up-to-date material about alternative brownfield sites.

It appears, in the example set out below, that Thames Water (‘TW’) has failed to select preferred sites on the basis of the principles set out in the draft WW NPS, and that its site selection needs to be reviewed in the light of this and a new consultation carried out.

Thames Tunnel

The WW NPS states that “London has a key role in supporting the national economy and the reputation of the UK. The unsatisfactory intermittent discharges cause reputational risk to the UK, detracting from the appeal of the river in the nation’s capital, which is otherwise a great asset to residents and visitors alike”.

Equally, there is a real reputational risk if this project is not delivered responsibly and if key assets, such as riverside parkland where residents and tourists alike can enjoy the Thames, are destroyed unnecessarily.

In the case outlined below, public parkland will be destroyed; the Thames Path and Jubilee Walkway (which showcases London landmarks and arguably provides one of the best views in the capital) will be displaced; mature trees will be felled and an important nature corridor which connects to the river will be removed. All this will happen unless TW accepts that there

is a brownfield alternative that provides an equal if not a better engineering solution for its project.

The WW NPS also states that:

“The unique scale and complexity of the development will lead to an equally large and complex planning process and the Government has a clear interest in ensuring that the planning process goes as smoothly as possible, to ensure that there are not significant delays in addressing the problems caused by these sewage overflows, while ensuring the process is transparent and that all interested points of view are heard and considered properly.” “For the Thames Tunnel scheme, its objective is to ensure the environmental objectives for the River Thames are met and therefore the UK’s compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.”

Again it is essential that the perceived urgency in the delivery of this project is not at the cost of full and proper research into the appropriate route and site selection and that the proposals put forward by TW are subject to full and independent scrutiny.

Threat to Green Space—Key Example

King’s Stairs Gardens (‘KSG’), in Rotherhithe, London SE16 is a prime example of how vital public parkland and adequate play space is under threat from a major infrastructure project (the Thames Tunnel—‘TT’) when alternatives are clearly available. It is essential that the importance of cleaning up the Thames does not result in a blinkered view of the project and that its huge scale means that insufficient emphasis is placed on the selection of individual sites along the route. It is vital that green spaces are given the utmost protection and that the importance of the project does not give the applicant the licence to use green space rather than search for more appropriate brownfield sites.

KSG is situated in a densely populated residential area in a deprived borough, which has a deficiency of open space. It is recognised for its environmental importance and its protection has the backing of every member of Southwark council, the local MP Simon Hughes, GLA members, community and environmental groups, local businesses, thousands of local residents and the wider public and the leading environmental campaigner and conservationist Professor David Bellamy, OBE. The Mayor of London has also expressed his reservations to TW (see GLA Thames Tunnel consultation documents).

Thames Water has been sent many strong, detailed and technical submissions explaining the reasons for the opposition to the use of the park, and provided with information on brownfield alternatives. There are too many submissions to quote in this report, but this further information can be submitted on request.

The current plans for the unnecessary destruction of KSG and the non-selection of a brownfield site can be contributed to a number of failings by TW:

• its failure to provide a full and proper assessment of the site by using out of date maps, overlooking key educational buildings and incorrectly recording the height, occupation and presence of nearby houses;

• its failure to differentiate between brownfield and greenfield sites in its site selection methodology, and to give sufficient weight to the community and environmental impact;

• its failure to provide up to date information on alternative brownfield sites by dismissing such sites early in the process and not monitoring their renewed availability because of changing market conditions.

• its failure to undertake an adequate consultation by providing a short list of one— KSG—with no alternatives (by proposing only one site in the Shad Thames area, indicating to the public at initial exhibitions that the use of KSG was inevitable and not consulting at an early stage, legal opinion suggests TW has failed to comply with its consultation duties. This potentially invalidates the whole site selection and consultation process—a waste of time and money from the public purse.)

• its failure to accept Southwark Council’s opposition to the use of KSG before the public consultation, raising questions about the validity of its consultation process with local authorities.

During the course of its public consultation, Thames Water has:

• admitted that alternative sites should have been put forward, rather than just KSG;

• admitted that had it checked again on the availability of alternative brownfield sites before the consultation that King’s Stairs Gardens might not have been chosen as its preferred site;

• admitted that a nearby brownfield site would provide them with as good an engineering solution, if not better.

By providing evidence on a particular site, the Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group would like to demonstrate that:

• it is clear that the threat to London’s parkland has come about as a result of inadequate research, assessment and consultation;

• that in contrast the WW NPS needs to be thorough and detailed and provide adequate provision for the protection of open space;

• that while the WW NPS recognises the importance of major waste water projects, this should not be at the price of judging the loss of green space to be acceptable;

• that the whole consultation and assessment process for worksites for the Thames Tunnel should be properly scrutinised—not just the WW NPS.

TW’s own documents on the proposed use of KSG state that it recognises the site is unacceptable because of the impact on the area (see attached Environment and Community Impact Response document (‘ECIR’). But greenfield sites can be obtained at no cost while brownfield sites can be expensive, and sometimes complicated, to obtain. TW’s own reports indicate that it would prefer to avoid the acquisition costs and risks associated with third party property transactions.

It is of great concern that a privately owned company can determine to use public parkland, which includes a children’s playground and is of great importance to the local community and the environment, on this basis. There needs to be a process where either the government or a third party can scrutinise proposals before specific plans for projects of this nature are all but finalised—in the case of KSG, with a short list of one—before the public consultation process even begins. TW has been provided with clear evidence that there are more acceptable sites, but it has made no move to remove KSG from the list of preferred sites.

Geographical Coverage

It is important that the WW NPS covers the entire project, including the location of sites and the legacy structures. It needs to set out the criteria for the selection of sites, including provisions for the avoidance of green space and acceptable methodologies and weighting requirements. We feel it is essential that the NPS makes a full assessment of the decision- making that led to the choice of specific locations. Nothing less would satisfy local communities, nor allow the potential impact of such choices to be assessed. Nothing less will lead to the removal of unacceptable sites including green space from the project shortlist.

Appraisal of Sustainability of the Waste Water NPS (‘AOS’)

We note some of the questions raised in the AOS—

“Will the NPS ensure the protection of green infrastructure networks, open space and sports and recreation land?”

“Will the route and the construction of the tunnel prioritise the use of previously developed land”?

“Will the NPS affect the health or well-being of the population?”

“Will the NPS result in the deterioration of existing areas of poor air quality?”

“Will the NPS seek to protect and enhance the character of landscapes and townscapes generally”

“Will the NPS adversely affect the more disadvantaged sections of society?”

“Will the NPS result in changes to community services or facilities?”

“Will the NPS protect, conserve and enhance where appropriate designated features of archaeological or cultural heritage importance?”

“Will the NPS encourage development that will result in increased noise levels at sensitive receptors (e.g. housing, schools and hospitals)?”

“Will the TT project affect the tranquillity of London’s open spaces, green networks and public realm?”

“Will the TT result in nuisance to local communities from odour or dust?”

“Will the TT result in no net loss of wildlife sites in London in accordance with the Mayor’s biodiversity strategy?”

“Will the TT adversely affect the more disadvantaged sections of society?”

“Will the TT result in changes to community services or facilities?”

TW’s flawed selection of KSG as one of the major worksites for the TT project fails to address satisfactorily any of these questions.

The WW NPS needs to contain provisions to ensure that community, environment and heritage values are adequately protected. The AOS contains a number of uncertainties surrounding site location and a full appraisal of the potential impacts could not be made because of this. We call for an edition of the AOS to be prepared on the basis of TW’s current preferred site list to ensure that there is a full appraisal of the impact on green space in the policy documents. It is essential, however, that the community, local authorities and other individuals and bodies are given the opportunity to put forward the information that was missed from TW’s assessment of these sites.

Open Spaces

We welcome the inclusion in the WW NPS that “The IPC should not grant consent for development on existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land”. We are concerned, however, by the proviso that “unless an assessment has been undertaken either by the local authority or independently, which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings

and land to be surplus to requirements or the IPC determines that the benefits of the project (including need) outweigh the potential loss of such facilities.”

It is unclear which body will be given the independent authority to conclude that the open space is surplus to requirements. Further, the statement that the IPC could determine that “the benefits of the project outweigh the potential loss of such facilities” simply means that it will be given the power to determine that green spaces can be destroyed for the greater good of the project. How will it be in the position to weigh up the detailed local concerns outlined in this document, especially if the applicant has failed to carry out a thorough enough analysis of its choices?

This approach does not sufficiently provide for an independent assessment of Thames Water’s proposals, nor its methodology, nor will it ensure that a full and proper analysis is carried out on alternative brownfield sites that may preserve the green spaces under threat. Alternative Solutions to the Thames Tunnel

We would recommend that previous solutions provided by independent engineering companies are fully considered and that other engineering companies are invited to give independent reports on all of the solutions to the sewage overflows.

Generic Impacts

The ECIR outlines the severe impact if the Thames Tunnel works are undertaken at King’s Stairs Gardens. Rather than listing all of this information in this report, reference is made to the ECIR. Again, we feel it is appropriate for local authorities and communities to have the opportunity to provide evidence on the impact of the TT on individual sites, in order to provide invaluable local knowledge and to ensure that the applicant has not missed key information.

The WW NPS includes a number of impacts, including odour, biodiversity conservation, landscape impact, noise and vibration and it is noted that the list is not comprehensive.

It is extremely important that it is recognised that some areas that have been earmarked to become sites for the TT works are public parkland, and include children’s playgrounds and key cycle and walking paths. These are quiet areas, very close to people’s homes. They are of environmental and social importance and are highly valued by local residents and visitors. They are areas that help to showcase the capital and improve its environment.

In the case of KSG, there are human rights issues related to the closeness of the development site to people’s homes, childcare, educational, religious and other public facilities. TW propose to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 7 years. There is no separation between the work site and some houses. Over a wider area, there is potential for the construction work to cause sleep deprivation, health disorders and to harm children’s development, removing a play space from an area already short of such facilities. In addition, the removal of mature

trees and the overall environmental damage caused will reduce natural drainage and damage an important habitat and nature corridor.

Please find below two examples of impacts that could not be fully assessed by the decision making body because of missing or conflicting information by the applicant—

1. Noise—The WW NPS states that factors that will determine the likely noise impact include the proximity of the proposed development to noise sensitive premises. In the case of KSG, however, TW has failed to note the existence of a nursery and educational facility of borough- wide importance.

2. Odour, dust, vibration and noise—at KSG, TW cannot meet its own team’s recommendations for the separation distance from houses and for limiting its working hours. Its documents note that shielding people’s homes will be largely ineffectual. One of the closest homes to the construction site is not recorded on TW’s maps. In the public consultation, TW provided conflicting information on odour, ie that there would be no odour from the sewer, that it could not guarantee that there would be no odour, and that there would be odour during a storm or that there would be odour but it will be released from a tall sewage vent. The proposed sewage vent will be five storeys high—the same height as some surrounding houses.

Conclusion

There is a real human and environmental cost if Thames Water and the government get the site selection wrong.

But because fundamental information is missing from the applicant’s assessment, the decision making body will be prevented from making an informed decision.

The Waste Water National Policy Statement (‘WW NPS’) needs to:

• ensure that all matters relating to individual sites is covered;

• ensure that the importance of green spaces is not over-ridden by the scale of this project and the government’s need to comply with the EU directive to clean up the Thames;

• give Metropolitan Open Land equivalent protection to Green Belt land;

• establish the criteria to be applied in deciding whether a location is suitable and requiring the applicant to choose brownfield sites, not greenfield;

• ensure appropriate weight is given to the selection of brownfield sites and the protection of public parkland and play space; 62

• ensure that the decision-making body fully assesses the impact of the proposals;

• ensure that there is a full and thorough process adopted by the applicant for the selection of individual worksites, that it provides clear evidence for its decisions and that its assessment of sites and their alternatives has been independently checked and verified;

• ensure that key information is not missed from such assessments, and that all information on selected sites and alternatives is fully up to date so that sites cannot be put forward as the only choice, when other solutions exist;

• ensure that if the use of parkland and play space is proposed the applicant must clearly demonstrate that it has exhausted all alternatives;

• ensure that the applicant’s site selection methodology is sound and independently verified, and that it differentiates between brownfield and greenfield sites with an appropriate weighting system;

• ensure that local authorities are given a proper say in the selection of individual worksites and above-ground structures;

• ensure that local communities are consulted on individual worksites and above- ground structures to provide important local knowledge in the assessment of the site and alternatives;

• ensure that the applicant will undertake a re-assessment if new information comes to light that negates the use of one site, or increases the attractiveness of an alternative;

• ensure that the WW NPS stresses the need to use brownfield sites wherever possible, rather than placing so much emphasis on the mitigation of adverse impacts, as it does at the moment.

DEFRA now needs to ensure that TW reviews its choice of sites and consults on a revised assessment, in view of its failure to select preferred sites on the basis of the principles set out in the draft WW NPS and for the inadequate consultation process.

January 2011

Written submission from STOPtheSHAFT Putney & Barnes (WWnps 10)

Executive Summary Thames Tunnel

STOPtheSHAFT (STS) are a community group formed in Nov 2010 order to raise awareness of the proposals for the Thames Tunnel & choice of Barn Elms as a Main Shaft Site. STS are in favour of a cleaner Thames but believe alternative sites/strategies offer less impact the community, wildlife & quality of life. More than 5000 people signed a petition against the plans. The late nature of the group formation and subsequent activity has shown there was very little public awareness up until recently. Requirements on awareness activity should therefore be looked into across the board and built into policy.

STS question validity on 1st stage consultation by Thames Water, very little engagement or interaction with local residents. There has been consistent lack of clarity on the plans and impact to local people. Requirements on readiness to go to a first or second stage consultation should be investigated. It is not acceptable to leave all essential detail out until a Phase 2 stage. Details around NPS requirements of minimum information provision and methods of engagement at stages of consultation should be enhanced and relate to information provision for issues at a local level.

STS is concerned as to the suitability of the proposed solution and the transparency on the needs for the project at a local level. Given the nature of an NPS this seems an understandable flaw for this project (the entire problem is viewed & solution provided in totality rather than a series of localized issue fixes which may better benefit the community and lessen environmental impact and potentially cost to customer base). At Barn Elms the construction will be very extensive & excessive in relation to the local problem the CSO’s contribute. In the Putney—Hammersmith stretch of the Thames problems come from other CSO’s in the area. Impacts from legal dumping from STW during limited capacity has also not been clarified. Ratings methodology for CSO’s in needs documents are unclear and visibility of alternative localized solutions to remedy problems with cost/benefit analysis has not been visible. Only a London wide solution is proposed. This is supports need for any NPS to have a clear weighting evaluation to Local Authority submissions plus evaluations from independent bodies; with clear regard given to NGO's such as RSPB, WWT, National Trust, Commons Conservators and local/national sporting bodies alongside residential & community groups.

Of major concern to us is the provisions taken to protect Greenfield or Metropolitan Open Land (MoL) within the NPS and Thames Water’s current site selection process. While draft NPS provides guidance on preferring Brownfield land over Greenbelt/MoL this needs to be considerably strengthened even as far as precluding Greenfield land from consideration where there are Brownfield alternatives with mandatory requirements whenever possible that projects are specifically designed to avoid use of Greenfield/MoL . Independent evaluation of plans is required to ensure protection of such areas of importance. We understand Thames Water’s Site selection methods imply the conclusions they have come to

on shaft positions or sites is a function of the way they have chosen to complete the works. If the works were completed in a different way different conclusions can be expected. As such, they can choose and argue that Greenfield or MoL is the only option but the reality is that it is the only option for the project in its current design form.

STS also have concern for the loose nature of requirements to evaluate local economic impacts of such projects. NPS should be stringent in requirements for impact to local economy for initial site selection.

Visibility on costs and budget for the project is also of concern.

overview on issues for EFRA select committee

1) Public awareness & Consultation flaws

Lack of awareness achieved with community/key stakeholders from many organisations Thames Water has not provided adequate information in its consultation. Many local residents and stakeholders still unaware of the proposals Fulham residents clearly affected by the proposed developments have not been notified Information only sent to residents within 250m of the selected sites - failed to reach the majority of the community. leaflets generic and did not clarify local implications Assumptions made people would have Internet access for follow up Problems with internet access Lack of clear explanation in lay terms for completion of feedback Key stakeholders using Barn Elms (local schools sports clubs) had no engagement with Thames Water with regards to the consultation or had any awareness of the project. Lack of alternative sites provided in consultation for a number of sites only the preferred option was presented as part of the consultation Site selection methodology questionable—no importance weighting given to each of the criteria used to select a site no information given about alternative options or strategies that would mean the preferred site would not need to be used Lack of independent verification At present the validity and legality of the consultation could be challenged. NPS needs much more prescriptive requirements about the consultation process

2) Transparency of needs/selection of solution

The entire scheme relies on one solution strategy vs. an alternative or hybrid solutions in relation to local problem:

Very little consideration of sustainable solutions at suitable locations Cost of localised alternative solutions may in fact be better for smaller local issues.

The need for 2 Putney CSO's connection is very unclear. CSO discharge figures given by Thames Water in the Needs Report show: ‐ The 3 worst CSO’s (Abbey Mills, F and A, and Greenwich contribute to 68% of discharges ‐ The 5 worst CSO’s contribute to 79.3% of discharges ‐ The 18 worst CSO’s contribute to 98.7% of discharges ‐ None of the CSO’s in Putney are included in the worst 18 CSO’s ‐ Most of the polluting CSO’s are in East London. Rating of CSO's by EA is questionable, no tangible/verified data on local CSO polluting impacts Lack of independent evaluation of proposed solutions/alternatives and options for hybrid approaches and local sustainable solutions for low impact CSOs Thames Water cited the CSO at Putney & Barn Elms as reason for Barn Elms selection. Based on this the proposed development at Barn Elms will require residents to go through a disproportionate amount of disruption. Unclear if discharge from Mogden will continue going forward 3) Protection of Greenfield/MoL

Despite the provisions in the NPS for protection of Greenbelt/MoL,

Protection of MoL or Greenfield areas not stringent enough. Statutory protection of MoL should be given since such sites are easy targets (by nature planning permission is restricted) and Brownfield sites are inherently attractive to developers and pose problems with prior planning consents & deterrent for costs of acquisition. NPS should clearly outline that strategies for such projects should be devised to ensure Brownfield sites are chosen from the outset and MoL excluded from choice. where unsuitable Brownfield sites are not available sustainable options should be weighted as higher priority/weighting (in accordance with the government's water white paper on sustainability)

4) Evaluation of local economic impacts of a project

This project is seen as beneficial economically to London as a whole but immediate local impact should be fully considered before site choices are made:

section 6.15.2 draft NPS Where a project is likely to have socio-economic impacts an assessment should be undertaken - actually an assessment of Socio economic impact and evaluation of the local economic impacts of a proposed site choice should be mandatory before proceeding For Putney/Barnes towpath this site attracts many tourists/visitors and if deterred from visiting then local business etc can suffer) as a consequence. Impact to Putney on reduction in rowing opportunities and business built up around such activity should be clearly evaluated before consultation

Local business supply chains for impacts to local road infrastructure etc. In the current form how would it be determined that such an local assessment should or shouldn't be undertaken Any local Socio-economic impact should be mandatorily built into site selection methodology

January 2011

Written submission from Natural England (WWnps 11)

1. Natural England is the Government’s statutory advisor on the natural environment. Natural England’s purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

2. Natural England is a statutory consultee on all National Policy Statements (NPSs) for infrastructure and on all Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in England.

3. Natural England has provided advice to each of the Government Departments producing National Policy Statements (Defra, DECC and DfT) at various stages in their preparation. Our advice has related to the Habitats Regulation Assessments, (HRA), the Appraisals of Sustainability (AoS) and the wording of the natural environment sections of the NPSs themselves. We have responded to the pubic consultations on the energy and ports National Policy Statements and will be responding to the current consultation on the Waste Water NPS prior to the consultation deadline.

4. The Waste Water National Policy Statement (NPS) is a plan within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations16; this means that it has to meet certain tests before it can be adopted. The NPS was subjected to an initial screening, which concluded that significant effects on sites protected under the Habitats Regulations could not be excluded. These sites are usually referred to as European sites or Natura 2000 sites. To comply with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations an appropriate assessment of the different elements of the NPS was then carried out. The appropriate assessment concluded that adverse effects on the ecological integrity of sites protected by the regulations could not be excluded. Under these circumstances the NPS can only be adopted if:

• There are no alternative solutions that would have less effect on protected sites • There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest • Compensatory measures can be secured

5. The HRA for the Waste Water NPS has been through several iterations. Natural England has provided advice to Defra, and its consultants, at each stage. The conclusion of the HRA is that effects on the integrity of European sites cannot be excluded if the NPS is adopted. Natural England supports this conclusion and considers that the ecological impacts, both for the plan as a whole and the two identified schemes, have been identified in as much detail as is possible for a high-level strategic plan.

16 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which transpose the European Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (the Habitats Directive) into UK law. 68

6. Natural England will, however, be drawing some minor wording discrepancies between the HRA, the NPS and the AoS in relation to impacts on European sites to Defra’s attention in our formal response to the NPS consultation.

7. With regard to the case for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), it is not Natural England’s role to take a view on IROPI in this case. As laid out in the Habitats Regulations, this is a matter for the competent authority, which in this case is the Secretary of State. Natural England can, however, advise on whether the process described in the Habitats Regulations has been complied with. In our view the IROPI case should include a specific paragraph outlining the need for the Thames Tunnel and Deephams projects but otherwise we are satisfied that the Habitats Regulations process has been correctly applied.

8. Natural England does, however, provide advice on the adequacy of compensatory measures. We acknowledge that providing detailed information on compensatory measures is not feasible for the NPS because these are matters that can only be established at project level when the full impacts on European sites are known. We have accepted the approach here, and in the HRA of other NPSs, of setting out the principles on which any compensatory measures would be based. This will assist the decision-maker in considering any applications that include compensatory measures.

January 2011