Front Cover - Parliament Publications - Parliament UK

House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The draft National Policy Statement (NPS) on Waste Water Fourth Report of Session 2010–11

HC 736

House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The draft National Policy Statement (NPS) on Waste Water Fourth Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 30 March 2011

HC 736 Published on 5 April 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesborough South and East Cleveland) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Richard Drax (Conservative, South Dorset) Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Amber Rudd (Conservative, Hastings and Rye) Mr David Anderson (Labour, Blaydon) was a member of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/efracom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Richard Cooke (Clerk), Lucy Johnson (Second Clerk), Sarah Coe (Committee Specialist—Environment), Rebecca Ross (Committee Specialist—Agriculture), Clare Genis (Senior Committee Assistant), Jim Lawford and Anna Browning (Committee Assistants); and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Hannah Pearce on 020 7219 8430.

The draft National Policy Statement (NPS) on Waste Water

1

Contents Report

1

Summary

3

Introduction

5 5 6

Our inquiry Reform of the planning system

2

Clarity and scope of the NPS guidance to decision makers Completeness of NPS Definition of terms

3

Page

The need for waste water infrastructure development Alternatives to new infrastructure

7 7 9 9 11

4

Impacts of projects

13

5

Value for money

14 15

Cost-benefits of impact standards

6

Environmental aspects Climate change

7

Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel

16 17 18

Planning Act threshold for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: Thames Tunnel 18 Rationale for inclusion of locationally specific projects 19 Need for replacement of Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and for the Thames Tunnel 21

8

Defra’s Consultation process

23

9

Conclusions

24

Conclusions and recommendations

25

Formal Minutes

27

Witnesses

28

List of printed written evidence

28

List of additional written evidence

28

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

29


3

Summary The UK’s 347,000 kilometre network of sewers and 9,000 sewage treatment works fulfil the vital function of managing over 11 billion litres of waste water each day. Changing weather patterns and population growth are leading to increased volumes of waste water in some parts of the country. Although improved water efficiency and the increased use of sustainable drainage systems can help to keep this increase to a minimum, in coming years there will be a need to construct new infrastructure to manage waste water. In particular new infrastructure is needed in the River Thames area to cope with population growth and to meet the European Union’s environmental requirements. It is therefore essential that the planning system for large waste water projects is as efficient as possible, to ensure that the new infrastructure is delivered in a timely manner while giving sufficient attention to the impacts on local communities and water and sewerage company customers who ultimately pay for such projects. The National Policy Statement (NPS) on Waste Water has the potential to provide a valuable policy framework to guide decision makers in their consideration of new largescale projects under the streamlined provisions of the Planning Act 2008. However, the draft NPS is a work in progress which will require considerable revision to make it complete and accurate. In particular, the site-specific sections should be removed and the NPS should focus wholly on providing clear generic criteria applicable to all Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). Furthermore, the Planning Act’s new regime for NSIPs does not currently apply to the Thames Tunnel project—a surprising omission given that this multi-billion pound project is one of only two waste water projects likely to be of sufficient scale to come within the ambit of this NPS. The Government must rectify this urgently. We expect Ministers in preparing the final version of the Waste Water NPS to take account both of our recommendations for improving the draft document and of responses to Defra’s public consultation. We recommend a debate on the floor of the House of Commons and, subject to its outcome and the incorporation of the recommended changes, we consider that the Secretary of State should designate this NPS.


5

1 Introduction Our inquiry 1. Every day in the UK about 347,000 kilometres of sewers collect over 11 billion litres of waste water which is treated at around 9,000 sewage treatment works before being discharged to inland waters and the sea. 1 On 16 November 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny its proposals for a Waste Water National Policy Statement (NPS) which sets out Government policy for the provision of major waste water infrastructure. 2 It includes information on two waste water projects—the proposed replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works in North East London and the proposed Thames Tunnel which would transfer waste water from West London to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London. On 18 November, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 152 H, the Liaison Committee designated the EFRA Committee to consider the proposals. 3 On the same day we announced our inquiry. 4 We received 12 written submissions and in addition received the 38 responses to Defra’s public consultation. 5 We took oral evidence from Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Thames Water Plc, London Councils and the Greater London Authority and from Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries at Defra. 6 We are grateful to all who gave us evidence in writing or in person. 2. Under the terms of Section 5 (4) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State is required to comply with certain requirements concerning consultation with Parliament (set out in Section 9 of the Act) before a proposed National Policy Statement can be ‘designated’. 7 The terms of Standing Order 152 H require the Liaison Committee to decide which Select Committee is to be designated to undertake the parliamentary scrutiny in the Commons (or it can recommend the establishment of an ad hoc committee for the purpose). Under paragraph 5 of the Standing Order the Committee so designated is required to report 39 days before the end of the period of consultation specified by the Secretary of State when presenting the proposed NPS to Parliament. 8

1

Defra, Sewage Treatment in the UK: UK Implementation of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, 2002, p 1.

2

Defra, National Policy Statement for Waste Water: A framework document for planning decisions on nationally significant waste water infrastructure, November 2010. Referred to in this report as the draft NPS. This document was published for consultation alongside an Appraisal of Sustainability, a Consultation Stage Impact Assessment, an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations and an Equality Impact Assessment.

3

See Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons,18 November 2010, item 7.

4

Terms of reference can be found in the Committee’s press statement at www.parliament.uk/efracom

5

Defra, Consultation on a Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010. Referred to in this Report as the consultation document. Defra’s consultation ran for 14 weeks from 16 November 2010 to 22 February 2011. Full details of the consultation are on Defra’s website at www.defra.gov.uk

6

Mr Benyon was accompanied by John Bourne, Deputy Director for Water Supply, and Andrea Marston, Head of Thames Tunnel Project Team, Defra.

7

Clause 109 of the Localism Bill currently before the House will alter these arrangements.

8

The specified period for the draft Waste Water NPS ends on 17 May 2011.

6


3. This Report forms part of that parliamentary scrutiny in the Commons. Our recommendations will inform Defra’s preparation of a final NPS and provide a detailed basis for any further debate in the House of Commons.

Reform of the planning system 4. The Planning Act 2008 introduced a new system for issuing planning consent for large, nationally significant projects to avoid the delays that occurred in determining applications for projects such as the Sizewell B nuclear power station and Heathrow Airport Terminal 5. The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) was established to make decisions on such projects, known as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), 9 guided by National Policy Statements which would provide clarity on the issues the IPC should take into account when considering planning applications. The NPSs are intended to set out national policy on key strategic planning topics, in this case on waste water policy, and to provide certainty for potential investors in infrastructure about the long-term policy environment. The draft Waste Water NPS states that: NPSs are the primary consideration for the IPC when it makes decisions on applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure, and will set the framework within which the IPC will make its decisions. NPSs will bring together a range of social, environmental and economic policies with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. They cover the need for new or expanded infrastructure, locational considerations, how impacts are to be assessed and weighed against benefits, and the mitigation of impacts. 10 5. Under the Planning Act, the Secretary of State remains the decision maker until the NPS is designated, after which the IPC will make the final decision on applications. However, the provisions of the Localism Bill, currently before Parliament, would abolish the IPC and decisions would then be taken by the relevant Secretary of State, with advice from a new Major Infrastructure Planning Unit (MIPU) within the Department for Communities and Local Government. 11 For planning applications covered by this NPS, decisions will be made jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. 12 Under the Localism Bill’s provisions, NPSs will be retained in much the same form as set out in the Planning Act and provide the framework for decision making. 13 6. Before an NPS can be used to guide the determination of planning applications, it must be ‘designated’ by the Secretary of State. In addition to the parliamentary process described

9

Planning Act 2008, Section1.

10

NPS consultation document, p 11, para 4.1.

11

NPS consultation document , p 8, para 2.1.

12

Department for Communities and Local Government, Major Infrastructure Planning Reform, December 2010, p 5.

13

As above, p 3.


7

above, the Planning Act 2008 requires each NPS to be subject to public consultation, 14 and an Appraisal of Sustainability, 15 before it can be designated. 16

2 Clarity and scope of the NPS guidance to decision makers 7. A key purpose of the scrutiny process is to determine whether the draft NPS requires amendment prior to designation by the Secretary of State. Most of the evidence we received endorsed the broad approach of this draft NPS. However, evidence from a wide range of sectors including the water and sewerage industry and its customers; planning bodies and local communities; and professional and environmental bodies highlighted specific concerns on the clarity of the draft NPS’s guidance and recommended amendments prior to designation. For example, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) flagged up concerns with the general description of the NPS’s relationship with statutory provisions. It considered that the draft should be reviewed to avoid repeating or re-interpreting the Planning Act 2008 “in different terms” which had no value as the provisions of the Act took precedence. 17 The IPC also noted factual inaccuracies in the draft NPS, such as wrongly identifying the Commission as the designated Hazardous Substance Authority. 18 8. A range of witnesses had reservations about the sections covering two specific projects, the replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel. We examined their specific concerns as well as assessing the logic and value to decision makers of including site-specific sections in this NPS. 9. Ofwat, the economic regulator of the water and sewerage sector, took issue with the inclusion of a project in an Asset Management Plan as demonstrating that it is needed. 19 Thames Water requested a fuller description of the drivers for new infrastructure projects and the timescales over which they are required. 20 We consider these issues further below.

Completeness of NPS 10. The Government has not set out definitively the extent to which an NPS should be a self-contained document. In the debate on the Planning Bill in 2008, the then Communities and Local Government Minister stated that an NPS would set “the complete policy framework relevant to decision making, integrating all the important and relevant

14

Planning Act 2008, Section 7.

15

The Appraisal of Sustainability process is not defined by legislation but is guided by the principles of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Defra conducted this alongside preparation of the draft NPS so that it could be informed by the Appraisal.

16

Planning Act 2008, Section 5 (3).

17

Ev w1

18

As above.

19

Ev 42

20

Ev 53

8


environmental, social and other aspects of policy”. 21 However, the Planning White Paper, published in 2007, stated that the NPS would not be the “only consideration”: It will [...] not be possible for National Policy Statements to identify and address how individual projects would take account of the wide range of relevant EC and domestic law provisions which will apply—including for example obligations arising from the Habitats and Air Quality Directives, the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights, or obligations arising from UK commitments in relation to climate change. 22 11. The draft NPS states that it sets out Government policy for the provision of major waste water infrastructure but it is a brief document. It does not cover in any great detail the policy issues it addresses, although the associated documents published with the draft NPS, such as the Appraisal of Sustainability, do provide considerably more detail. For example, decentralisation of waste water treatment infrastructure as an alternative to new large projects is covered in the main NPS document in one paragraph, 23 and air quality and emissions are dealt with in less than one page. 24 There is one footnote referring the reader to the Department’s Air Quality Strategy but no description of what this contains, even in outline. The Institution of Civil Engineers was concerned that the ‘Factors for Examination’ section, 25 referenced “only a few regulations and guidelines,” despite many of the factors being subjective, making it difficult for the IPC to be consistent in its assessment of applications. 26 12. The Minister considered that the draft offered “just the right balance: not going into too much detail, not being too prescriptive but providing the IPC with the information they need”. 27 He added that he would allow IPC members to use their judgement as professional planners but he would also give a clear steer as to how to they should apply the NPS. 28 Nonetheless, the draft NPS falls between two stools, providing neither a succinct check-list for decision makers nor a fully descriptive resource. Clearly it will not be practicable for the NPS to be fully self-contained given the breadth of issues it covers, but it is hard to see the value of including brief references to issues without then providing details as to their source and explaining where further information can be found. 13. We recommend that the draft NPS be revised to provide comprehensive and effective sign-posting to assist decision makers in accessing the full sources of policy advice to which the document refers.

21

HC Deb, 2 June 2008, Col 571.

22

Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning for a Sustainable Future, May 2007, p 49.

23

Draft NPS, p 12, para 2.4.13.

24

Draft NPS, pp 67 and 68, paras 6.11.1–6.11.4.

25

Draft NPS, Chapter 5.

26

Institution of Civil Engineers, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011.

27

Q 157

28

Q 166


9

Definition of terms 14. The draft NPS uses ill-defined terms such as ‘maximise’, 29 and ‘good architecture’. 30 Ofwat was concerned that terms such as ‘good design’ or ‘as aesthetically pleasing as possible’ were a “bit vague”, 31 and the Environment Agency also thought that references to visual amenity were unclear. 32 However, the EA noted that some terms which were not defined within the NPS, such as ‘reasonable,’ were well established in planning circles. 33 15. The NPS is the primary basis for IPC decision making on ‘associated development,’ such as roads, pumps and ancillary buildings, and the Secretary of State has issued guidance on what the IPC must have regard to in deciding whether development accompanying a waste water project constitutes ‘associated development’. 34 However, the IPC considered that it would help applicants if the NPS itself could include this guidance. 35 The Minister conceded that Defra would be able to provide a “sentence or two” within the main document. 36 16. We recommend that the NPS be revised to define more clearly those terms whose interpretation is subjective so as to provide decision makers with clarity on their meaning in the context within which they are used. The NPS should also be amended to include guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘associated development’ for waste water infrastructure purposes.

3 The need for waste water infrastructure development 17. Whilst not required by the Planning Act, the Government has made a commitment that an NPS would include consideration of ‘national need’ for new infrastructure. The guide Infrastructure Planning: How will it work? How can I have my say? states that: NPSs will establish the national need and set out policy for infrastructure; explain how they take account of the Government’s relevant social, economic and environmental policies; and show how they contribute to tackling climate change. 37 18. The IPC considered that the clarity with which the need for infrastructure in general is set out is “fundamental to the utility of the NPS in the work of the examining authority and

29


30


31

Q8

32

Q 43

33

As above.

34

Draft NPS, p 4.

35

Ev w2

36

Q 167

37

Department for Communities and Local Government, Infrastructure Planning, How will it work? How can I have my say? September 2009.

10


the decision maker”. 38 However, some witnesses considered that the draft NPS does not sufficiently demonstrate the generic need for new infrastructure. For example, Water UK, representing water and sewerage companies, criticised the draft NPS for failing to include a “clear statement of the regulatory imperative that is almost always the principal driver for such projects”. 39 19. Rather than setting out in full the environmental or other drivers for new projects, the draft NPS defines proof of need by application of two straightforward criteria. Paragraph 2.5.2 of the draft NPS states that the Government considers that the need for new waste water treatment infrastructure will have been demonstrated if: The Environment Agency has concluded that the infrastructure is necessary for environmental reasons and included it in its National Environment Programme [NEP] and/or Ofwat has concluded that investment in the infrastructure is justified on economic grounds (including social and environmental costs and benefits) and included it in the latest water company Asset Management Plan (AMP). 40 Both the projects discussed in the draft NPS (the Thames Tunnel and the Deephams scheme) are included in the EA’s NEP. The NPS provides no detail on the process leading to the inclusion of the projects in the National Environment Programme, nor does it explain how the Asset Management Plan process operates beyond stating that Ofwat examines the economic justification for schemes in response to environmental or other drivers (such as population growth, urbanisation or replacement of ageing infrastructure) and that projects approved by Ofwat during its periodic price reviews are included in the Asset Management Plan. 41 Ofwat disputed the use of inclusion in the AMP as proof of need. It told us that, while it examines and challenges the necessity of the companies’ overall programmes, it does not “generally approve specific schemes”. It emphasised that it is for water and sewerage companies to decide the most efficient and appropriate way to met their objectives and targets, stating that “just because a scheme is listed in a company’s AMP, 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”.42 20. The regulator considered that a misinterpretation of its role by the NPS would be unhelpful and could prevent the IPC from “applying its own rigorous scrutiny to schemes”. 43 Ofwat also stated that it would expect the IPC to “examine and challenge (if necessary) the supporting evidence” for the need for a project. 44 Regina Finn, Chief Executive of Ofwat, told us that the NPS “needs to be clearer that it is not a tick-box

38

Ev w1

39

Ev w7

40

Draft NPS, p 13.

41

Draft NPS, p 7.

42

Ev 42

43

As above.

44

Ev 45


11

exercise” and that “setting a framework rather than an absolute criterion would be better”.45 21. The Environment Agency did not take issue with the use of inclusion in its NEP as proof of need for a project. It stated that it takes a “strong, evidence-based approach” to developing the NEP and that it expected water companies to include “100% of the NEP in their final business plans”. 46 Nevertheless, Thames Water considered that a reliance only on inclusion in the NEP or AMP was too simplistic and that there could be situations where infrastructure is “deemed to be necessary” but is not included within the NEP.47 22. The Minister told us that, while Ofwat did not look at each individual project and assess it in relation to need, it did look at a water company’s “holistic plan”. He conceded that the precise wording might not be right but argued that the overall point as set out in the draft NPS was correct. 48 23. We endorse Ofwat’s views and consider that it is inappropriate for the NPS to use inclusion in an Asset Management Plan to prove a project’s need since it is clear that the criterion has been adopted on the incorrect assumption that inclusion in an AMP equates to regulatory approval of the specific project. We recommend that the NPS be amended to remove inclusion in an Asset Management Plan as a criterion for proving need for a project. 24. Inclusion within the Environment Agency’s National Environment Programme is less contentious a criterion for determining need. However, the NPS should set out clearly the process by which projects are accepted for inclusion in the Programme and are thereby deemed to be needed on environmental grounds.

Alternatives to new infrastructure 25. The draft NPS considers alternative methods of meeting demand which could obviate the need to invest in nationally significant waste water projects. 49 Key methods include reducing domestic and industrial waste water production, for example by improving water efficiency; greater use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDs); building sewers separate from surface water drains; and decentralising waste water treatment infrastructure. The draft NPS concludes that these measures will mitigate the need for new infrastructure to some extent but that “the need for new waste water infrastructure projects will remain in some circumstances.” The document notes that such need will increase in response to climate change, population growth or more stringent environmental standards. 50 26. Water UK criticised the section on alternatives in the draft NPS for being “overly optimistic” in its assumptions about the contribution alternative approaches could make to

45

Q 10

46

Ev 49

47

Thames Water Plc, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011.

48

Q 168

49

Draft NPS pp 10-13, para 2.4.

50

Draft NPS, p 13.

12


managing waste water without the need to invest in new infrastructure. 51 It considered that, for example, SUDs will take a “long time to become the de-facto system in common operation”. Southern Water Services also noted that the optimism expressed in the alternatives section was not supported by an evidence base and, in the company’s experience, measures taken by households to reduce water usage did not significantly reduce sewerage system flows. 52 27. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea noted the potential contribution that approaches such as SUDs could make to reducing the need for new infrastructure and stated that “alternatives therefore need to be considered in some depth and a robust justification given as to why they are not feasible”. 53 The council considered that the NPS needed to “go further in that respect”. 54 The EA told us that retrofitting sustainable water management infrastructure in heavily urbanised areas would be “enormously challenging” but that pressures such as population growth, climate change and necessarily tight environmental standards would combine to encourage reduced reliance on the use of combined sewers to remove waste water. 55 28. The Minister accepted that sustainable drainage had a role to play in new developments but that retrofitting such systems would be “massively expensive” and it would be “impossible” for it to be undertaken to the extent necessary in London. 56 29. The draft NPS provides minimal information on the evidence basis for its broad conclusions about the impact of alternative methods on the likely future need for waste water infrastructure projects. The EA noted that Defra was working on a project to assess the costs of SUDs retrofitting, but this work is not referred to in the draft NPS. 57 Defra’s Deputy Director for Water, John Bourne, said that there was sufficient information on SUDS in the public domain so that the NPS itself would not need to include this information. 58 30. The absence of a detailed evidence base makes it hard to assess whether the draft NPS’s conclusions on the potential for SUDs to contribute to reducing waste water are either over or under-stated. We recommend that Defra revises the NPS to set out in detail the basis of its assessment for the potential of alternative approaches to mitigate the need for new infrastructure, such as the increased use of sustainable drainage systems and water efficiency measures to reduce the production of waste water. 31. It is vital that Defra gathers full information on the extent to which it would be possible to adopt SUDs more widely, especially through retrofitting systems to existing developments, not only to inform the conclusions of the NPS but also to ensure the

51

Ev w6

52

Southern Water Services, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011.

53

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011.

54

As above.

55

Ev 52

56

Q 172

57

Ev 52

58

Q 173


13

effective development of all of the Government’s sustainable flood and water management policies. 32. We recommend that Defra undertakes within 12 months a full assessment of the potential national impact of widespread adoption of SUDs and water efficiency programmes for existing as well as new housing stock on future waste water infrastructure needs and that this be taken into account in any future revisions of the Waste Water NPS.

4 Impacts of projects 33. The largest section in the draft NPS sets out the generic impacts of waste water infrastructure, itemising “significant” impacts which the IPC should consider, such as odour, flood-risk, biodiversity, noise, landscape and visual impacts. 59 The draft NPS states that the IPC will “wish to consider where they determine that the impact is relevant and important to their decision”. 60 This section also provides guidance as to how the IPC must satisfy itself as to the acceptability of impacts or mitigating measures it can impose. However, the draft NPS does not guarantee that this section is fully comprehensive and states that exclusion of a factor is not “in itself a reason for giving less weight to that impact”. 61 34. The draft NPS does not provide guidance as to the relative weight which should be given by decision makers to any of the listed impacts, although the Planning Act allows for “relative weights” to be allocated to “specified criteria”. 62 Additionally, as many giving evidence to us noted, the draft NPS does not advise decision makers as to how they should balance short-term impacts with longer-term benefits. Thames Water considered that the relative weights of short-term and long-term impacts should be set out explicitly in the NPS. 63 The company was also concerned that “very localised and short-term adverse impacts” of projects should be “seen in the broader policy context of providing essential waste water infrastructure”. 64 However, some bodies such as the GLA took the opposite view, believing that “local impacts will be overlooked” with the draft NPS doing little to provide re-assurance. 65 London Councils considered that the draft NPS did not “constitute a practical framework” as it did not include any consideration of “local disbenefits which would normally be considered through the planning process, such as increased traffic”. 66 However, the Minister told us that applicants would be expected to provide the IPC with

59

Draft NPS, Chapter 6.

60


61

As above.

62

Planning Act 2008, Section 5 (2).

63

Ev 53

64

As above.

65

Ev 54

66

Ev 59

14


further information but the document does not spell out exactly what this should constitute. 67 35. We recommend that the NPS be revised to provide clearer guidance for decision makers as to how they should balance the relative weights of different impacts and that it set out the criteria for making judgements on the extent to which short-term, local impacts should be tolerated in order to deliver long-term, wider gains. 36. The draft NPS states that the re-use of previously developed land can reduce the amount of undeveloped greenfield land that needs to be used but notes that this may not be possible for some forms of infrastructure. 68 We received evidence from community groups such as the Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group who noted that some of the planned construction sites for the Thames Tunnel are on amenity sites, such as parks near to the river. The group argued that guidance in the NPS should be strengthened to direct decision makers to require developers to consider brownfield sites wherever possible. Planning law includes protection of open spaces such as public gardens and recreation grounds. 69 However, the draft NPS specifies that its provisions will apply to “all open space of public value,” including areas of water. 70 37. The wording of the NPS must fully reflect existing statutory provisions which decision makers would be expected to take into account in order to protect greenfield spaces.

5 Value for money 38. A number of witnesses recommended that the impacts on water customers’ bills from the construction of new waste water projects should be considered by those tasked with examining planning applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. For example, Isabel Dedring, the Mayor’s Advisor on the Environment at the GLA, told us that, while it was good for the costs of a project to be lower than the benefits, the real question to ask was “is it the best value thing that you could have done?” 71 In reference to the Thames Tunnel, she considered that it was important for the IPC to look at alternative means of developing the project that brought down costs while “still delivering everything it needs to deliver.” She added that this information should be publicly presented. 72 The project costs for the Thames Tunnel have increased from an estimated £2 billion when the scheme was originally proposed to some £3.6 billion now. 73 Thames Water told us that the original figure provided to Ministers in 2007 was only a “high-level estimate” based on initial work, and that they were “confident” that the project could be delivered within the

67

Q 185

68


69

Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

70

Draft NPS, p 57.

71

Q 118

72

Q 119

73

“Thames Tunnel sewer costs could double”, Water Briefing, 23 September 2010. www.waterbriefing.org


15

current estimate. 74 Nevertheless, the scale of these cost increases is a matter of concern and there is no certainty that costs will not rise still further in response to as yet unforeseen problems that may arise during construction. 39. The Consumer Council for Water (CC Water) wanted customers, who would ultimately pay for projects, to be involved in the decision making process for new infrastructure and for a full cost-benefit analysis of the options to be set out. 75 Ofwat also noted that customers have to pay for the improvements and therefore the full costs of any investment should be carefully considered, particularly where the planning process specified requirements above the minimum, such as for ‘good design’ purposes. 76 Ofwat’s Chief Executive, Regina Finn, told us that there was a lack of clarity in the draft NPS and that a transparent “cost-benefit assessment process or methodology” should be put at its heart. This would take into account social and environmental costs and benefits and give a clearer framework to allow impacts to be considered holistically. 77 Defra’s Deputy Director for Water Supply, John Bourne, said that Ministers had considered such an approach but that the NPS was not intended to be part of a business-case system and Defra did not therefore intend to pursue this “very complicated” approach at present. 78 40. Ofwat did not provide us with sufficiently detailed evidence on which to assess the extent to which it would be practicable to incorporate cost-benefit assessments of specific projects without adding lengthy processes to what is intended to be a streamlined spatial planning system. Approval of the costs which can be passed on to water and sewerage company customers is rightfully a core Ofwat function under its current regulatory remit and it is hard to see the benefits to be gained from duplicating this activity within the spatial planning process. In view of the alarming increases in estimated costs, Ofwat must fully utilise its regulatory powers to scrutinise the economic case for the Thames Tunnel project and be rigorous in determining which costs should be passed on to Thames Water’s customers.

Cost-benefits of impact standards 41. The draft NPS specifies standards for certain impacts which are to be achieved by any waste water NSIP regardless of the costs and benefits of meeting these standards in the local circumstances of an individual project. Many witnesses, including Water UK, challenged the standards proposed for odour since the costs of achieving the specified standard would be “disproportional to the benefit”. The standard should be “open to discussion and based on cost benefit analysis and customers’ willingness to pay”. 79 Southern Water Services considered that any standard on odour should be site-specific, should be based on modelling for odour dispersion in the locality of a proposed development, and should take into account the willingness of customers to pay. 80 74

Q 72

75

Ev w4

76

Ev 45

77

Q7

78

Q 206

79

Ev w7

80

Southern Water Services, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011.

16


Additionally, many technical submissions to Defra focussed on whether the proposed odour standards were correct.81 42. The Planning Act requires an NPS to set out criteria to be taken into account in the design of projects but some witnesses questioned the unqualified requirement that applicants should design infrastructure to be “as attractive ... as they can be,” including visually. 82 Many witnesses wished to see this requirement for good design balanced with the costs of achieving it. For example, Ofwat noted that while the benefits of good design would accrue to those living and working in the immediate vicinity of projects, it was the whole customer base of the relevant water company which would bear the cost in the form of higher bills. The regulator argued that the draft NPS’s reference in paragraph 5.5.2 should more strongly reflect the need for other constraints to be taken into account and recommended that the IPC should be required explicitly to “have regard to the affordability of the design driven by aesthetics and to weigh the associated costs against the benefits”. 83 It expected companies to challenge any stringent planning requirements, including on design, if they wished to have costs of projects allowed in regulatory price limits. The regulator permitted only “reasonable net additional costs associated with the Secretary of State’s final decision” to be passed on to customers. It cited examples of excessive costs such as the £50 million green roof imposed in 2008 on the Brighton sewage works and a 50% increase in project costs arising from a planning requirement to enclose a new sewage treatment works in the Anglian Region in 2002. 84 In contrast some organisations, such as the GLA, considered that the draft NPS wording should be strengthened since some developers would “not try hard enough to design infrastructure to minimise its visual and other impacts”. 85 43. It is in the interests of water and sewerage company customers as well as project applicants that the NPS should not impede the IPC’s use of its own skills and experience in judging the standards to apply to projects. We recommend that Ministers clarify that the NPS does not fetter the IPC or other decision makers’ ability to apply their judgement so as to impose the standards most appropriate to the local circumstances of specific projects.

6 Environmental aspects 44. For the purposes of the EU Habitats Directive, 86 an NPS is considered to be a ‘plan’ and therefore subject to an assessment to confirm that it will have no adverse affect on a

81

For example submissions from Thames Water, Chartered Institute for Environmental Health, Ofwat.

82

Draft NPS, p 30, paras 5.5.2 and 5.5.3.

83

Ev 46

84

Ev 45

85

Ev 57

86

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna, also known as the EU Habitats Directive, requires EU Member States to introduce a range of measures for the protection of habitats and species as listed in its Annexes.


17

European protected site. 87 However, plans or projects where Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) are shown to outweigh the impacts on habitats and wildlife are permitted under the Directive. The draft NPS states that the Government has presented a case for IROPI since it “cannot rule out the potential for adverse impacts” on European sites resulting from the NPS, and has concluded that there are no alternatives which would “better respect the integrity of European sites and deliver the objectives of this plan”. 88 Defra’s IROPI case is that the NPS is needed to ensure there is no further deterioration in surface water quality which would “lead to increased risk to human health and safety and consequences of primary importance for the environment”. 89 However, this section of the draft NPS does not provide detail as to how an improved planning regime for waste water projects can assist in delivering such objectives. 45. The statement of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) justifying development of this NPS should be strengthened to reflect the considerable environmental benefits which a streamlined planning regime can deliver through enabling timely completion of necessary waste water infrastructure projects.

Climate change 46. Many waste water projects are carried out to meet environmental requirements yet the projects themselves can have climate change impacts, for example through increased energy usage in construction and ongoing operation of infrastructure. The Institution of Civil Engineers noted that, although applications would have to demonstrate their adaptability to climate change, there was no requirement for a project to incorporate measures to mitigate climate change through low-carbon approaches to their design, construction and operation. 90 According to Ofwat, the draft NPS was deficient in its treatment of climate change mitigation and should have recognised that projects necessary to adapt to climate change could have “significant carbon impacts which may undermine mitigation efforts”. It considered that the scope for energy and carbon savings of any alternatives to projects should be made explicit. 91 47. The EA also considered that clearer guidance should be included on how proposed developments could contribute towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in line with Defra’s climate change plan, including generating renewable energy from methane. It also recommended that the NPS should require information on greenhouse gas emissions to be included in Environmental Statements accompanying project applications. 92 Southwark Council also suggested improvements to the section on climate change mitigation, for example by including a requirement on applicants to increase tree canopy cover and expand green infrastructure.93

87

The EU has established a Europe-wide network of Natura 2000 sites including Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas to protect habitats and species of European importance.

88


89


90

Institution of Civil Engineers, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011.

91

Ev 46

92

Environment Agency, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011, p 4.

93

London Borough of Southwark, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011.

18


48. The draft NPS should be revised to make more detailed reference to increases in greenhouse gas emissions that waste water infrastructure projects could cause and to provide stronger guidance to decision makers on the mitigation measures they should consider imposing on project applicants.

7 Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel 49. The draft NPs includes significant sections (Chapters 3 and 4) on two London projects. The first is the replacement of the waste water treatment infrastructure at Deephams Sewage Treatment Works in North East London where there is likely to be a requirement for “significant new treatment facilities on the existing site or on another site”, the location of which is yet to be confirmed. 94 The existing Deephams Sewage Treatment Works has a capacity of 870,000 population equivalent and the proposed improvement project may require an entirely new works to be built with a capacity of 885,440, meaning that the project will be above Planning Act thresholds and therefore be classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.95 50. The second project addressed in the draft NPS is the Thames Tunnel project. This is a proposed 30 km tunnel running from West to East London to intercept storm sewer overflows and transfer them to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London. A major part of the tunnel route is likely to be along the course of the River Thames. Thames Water is currently conducting a pre-application consultation exercise on potential routes and sites with local stakeholders, prior to an anticipated planning application being made in 2012. 96

Planning Act threshold for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: Thames Tunnel 51. The draft NPS states that the Thames Tunnel has since 2007 been the “preferred infrastructure solution” to address the problem of pollution caused by untreated sewage and rainwater discharges from London’s combined sewer overflows into the River Thames. 97 However, the project does not currently meet the definitions in the Planning Act for a waste water NSIP, since it is not a sewage treatment works.98 The Secretary of State confirmed on 6 September 2010 that, as intended by the previous Government, the project should be considered at national level and that development consent for it should

94


95

Section 14(1) (o) of the Planning Act sets out the definition of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project in relation to the construction or alteration of a waste water treatment plant. Construction of a waste water treatment plant is defined in section 29 of the Planning Act 2008 as coming within section 14 (1) (o) only if the plant is in England and has a capacity exceeding a population equivalent of 500,000.

96

Thames Water Plc has a consultation webpage which can be found at http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk

97

Draft NPS, p 21, paras 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.

98

Section 14(1) (o) of the Planning Act sets out the definition of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project in relation to the construction or alteration of a waste water treatment plant.


19

be dealt with under the Planning Act’s NSIP regime. 99 The Government proposes to amend the Planning Act by means of an Order under Section 14 of the Act to change the threshold definitions to bring the project within its ambit. 100 52. Some witnesses, such as the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, 101 and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, objected in principle to the inclusion of the Thames Tunnel in the NSIP processes. 102 The Government, in consulting on the change of threshold definitions, will need to explain clearly its reasons for including certain largescale sewage collection and transfer projects within the new planning regime for NSIPs. However, with the Thames Tunnel project crossing some 14 London Boroughs, it is clear that applying the current planning system would be highly complex and the project appears to be a prime candidate to benefit from the streamlined processes of the NSIP regime. It is therefore perverse that the project, one of only two waste water NSIPs likely to come forward within the lifetime of this NPS, should have been excluded from the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 for large-scale projects despite having been identified as needed as early as 2007. 53. We recommend that the Government urgently brings forward proposals to amend the Planning Act 2008 to bring large-scale sewage collection and transfer schemes such as the Thames Tunnel within the planning regime for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

Rationale for inclusion of locationally specific projects 54. Inclusion of locationally specific information is permitted under the Planning Act 2008 which states that an NPS may: •

set out criteria to be applied in deciding whether a location is suitable (or potentially suitable) for a specified description of development;

•

set out the relative weight to be given to specified criteria, and

•

identify one or more locations as suitable (or potentially suitable) or unsuitable for a specified description of development. 103

55. To date, the only other NPS to identify specific sites or projects relates to nuclear energy and identifies 10 sites as suitable for potential nuclear power station development.104 56. We considered whether including locationally specific information about the two London projects would assist decision making. The draft NPS states that it should not only provide a generic statement of policy but should also include “specific detail on the projects

99

Draft NPS, p14, para 2.6.4.

100 Q 178 101 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011. 102 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation, February 2011. 103 Planning Act 2008, Section 5 (5). 104 Department of Energy and Climate Change, National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power (EN6), October 2010.

20


known to be coming forward”, 105 and that as well as considering the need for new infrastructure in general the NPS should cover two NSIPs which have been “assessed as required to meet this need”. 106 However, the document is not explicit in defining the benefits to decision makers from including such site-specific information. The Impact Assessment simply states that detailing known project proposals makes the process clearer for developers and others, reducing costs and time. 107 John Bourne, Defra’s Deputy Director for Water Supply, told us that bringing the projects into the NPS would help the IPC in its deliberations “a bit further”. 108 However, it is not clear how the sections as drafted will achieve this since the content of Chapters 3 and 4 is not sufficiently robust. We received evidence on the adequacy of these sections including from the IPC which had concerns about a blurring of the boundaries between the NPS and the role of the Commission. It recommended a review of the draft NPS’s locationally specific sections to ensure that they provide a “robust policy context without infringing on areas which are properly the province of the applicant or the IPC”. 109 We discuss below a number of detailed concerns about the content of Chapters 3 and 4 on the two London projects. 57. Beyond concerns about the content of the sections, we have a fundamental reservation about the underlying logic for including locationally specific material. There is a flaw in the rationale given by the Impact Assessment for producing an NPS containing a mix of generic and site specific information. The Impact Assessment states that three options were considered: 1) do not develop a Waste Water NPS (baseline); 2) develop a generic NPS, and 3) produce and designate a Waste Water NPS including specific detail on the projects known to be coming forward and covering those generic elements which support the requirement for new waste water infrastructure. 58. The Impact Assessment discounts option 2, developing a generic NPS, since this would “not cover the two schemes known to be in development.” The Impact Assessment asserts that including the known proposed schemes would allow the “simplified system of the NPS to be used”. 110 However, we dispute this argument since an NPS which is purely generic would nevertheless apply to any project defined by the Planning Act 2008 as a NSIP— including therefore the Deephams scheme. The Thames Tunnel project would only be classed as a NSIP once the Planning Act is amended—once that amendment is made that project would also fall within the ambit of a generic NPS. 111 59. A further concern is that including separate criteria which apply only to the two identified projects has undermined the strength of the generic criteria applicable to all 105 Draft NPS Impact Assessment, p 1. 106 Draft NPS, p 3. 107 Draft NPS Impact Assessment. 108 Q 181 109 Ev w1 110 Draft NPS Impact Assessment. 111 Planning Act 2008, Section 14.


21

projects meeting relevant thresholds. For example, Chapter 2 sets out Government policy on the need for waste water infrastructure, identifying specific criteria for proving any project’s need. However, Chapters 3 and 4 go on to set out material in support of the needs case for the two London projects which is not directly extrapolated from these generic principles. The document then concludes that the IPC should consider that the national need for both the Deephams scheme and Thames Tunnel projects has been demonstrated by Chapters 3 and 4 of the NPS. 112 Defra’s Deputy Director for Water Supply told us that the NPS could have relied on the generic criteria as set out in paragraph 2.5.2 of the draft NPS but that the “default” position required by the Planning Act was that specific projects should be brought into the NPS if known. However, including site-specific needs cases for the two London projects is tautologous since both already meet the draft NPS’s generic criteria for proof of a project’s need—inclusion in the EA’s National Environment Programme or an Asset Management Plan.113 60. We do not think that decision makers will be assisted by the locationally specific sections in the draft NPS as they do not amplify the generic principles, rather they undermine their logic by presenting a needs case based on analogous but different criteria. We consider that the NPS should be a generic document, applicable to all projects which comply with the statutory classification of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, with clear criteria which can then be applied by decision makers to specific project applications as and when they are submitted. 61. We recommend that the draft NPS be revised to produce a purely generic document by removing Chapters 3 and 4 on the replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel. Defra may wish to provide material in an annex exemplifying points made in the NPS by reference to specific schemes, but it should be made clear that it does not constitute information to which decision makers must have regard when considering project applications.

Need for replacement of Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and for the Thames Tunnel 62. Whilst we consider that the draft NPS should not include site-specific material in the main document, we received a great deal of evidence expressing concerns about the content of the sections on the Deephams and Thames Tunnel projects, which it is worth highlighting. Some witnesses, including Thames Water, considered that the needs case for the projects should be enhanced, in particular to reflect the fact that EU environmental requirements are driving the need for these two projects. Key EU Directives governing management of the UK’s water environment include the Urban Waste-Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD), 114 the Freshwater Fish Directive, 115 and the Water Framework

112 Draft NPS, p 20, para 3.3.8, and p 27, para 4.2.1. 113 Draft NPS, p 7. 114 The Urban Waste-Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) was adopted by Member States in 1991 and transposed into UK legislation by the end of January 1995. Its objective is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of sewage discharges. It sets treatment levels on the basis of sizes of sewage discharges and the sensitivity of waters receiving the discharges. 115 The EC freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC) was originally adopted on 18 July but consolidated in 2006. It will be repealed in 2013 by the Water Framework Directive which includes extensive measures to improve water quality.

22


Directive (WFD). 116 Although the draft NPS makes reference to the UWWTD and Freshwater Fish Directives as drivers for the need to replace Deephams Sewage Treatment Works, Thames Water considered that the document should include “a clearer and more robust statement” of the need for new projects. It should also set out the legal requirements driving that need and the “consequences of a failure to meet those requirements”. 117 The company argued that the Thames Tunnel was required not least because the EU had begun infraction proceedings against the UK Government for non-compliance with the UWWTD due to waste water pollution of the River Thames. 118 63. On the other hand, other witnesses considered the needs case as set out in the draft NPS to be overstated. The Greater London Authority (GLA) rejected the Government’s assertion that failure to adopt the NPS would result in failure by the UK Government to meet obligations in the UWWTD.119 The GLA argued that not having an NPS did not mean that “poor decisions will be made, it just means that decisions will not have a single source of policy advice to follow”. 120 64. Witnesses also had reservations as to the adequacy of the draft NPS’s sections on alternatives to constructing new infrastructure. London Councils was concerned that the draft NPS did not contain “particular advice” on alternatives to the London schemes such as reducing demand, diverting surface water from sewage systems or decentralisation of waste water treatment infrastructure. It argued that, since previously rejected alternatives to the Thames Tunnel had now had their cost assessments revised, it was inappropriate to restrict the IPC’s consideration of “plausible alternatives”. 121 The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham claimed that, despite seven years of examination, options such as sustainable urban drainage systems, rainfall and storm-water harvesting, and separation of storm flows had been given only “scant” attention. 122 The Minister conceded that there could be a “bit more” information included on the need for specific projects which would help the IPC further. 123 65. The brief sections in the NPS on the replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel are not sufficient to prove the need for these large-scale projects, in particular the multi-billion pound Thames Tunnel project which will have impacts over a period of years on the lives and livelihoods of people living and working locally. Nor do the sections on the alternative approaches sufficiently address all of the potential options for achieving desired outcomes such as improved water quality. We recommend above that site-specific material is not included in the main NPS but it is important that Defra ensures that wherever such information is used it is robust and complete.

116 Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EU). 117 Ev 53 118 As above. 119 Draft NPS, p 6, para 1.5.3. 120 Ev 55 121 Ev 58 122 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Submission to Defra Consultation, February 2011. 123 Q 181


23

66. We recommend that Defra include in any justification of new waste water infrastructure projects full explanation as to how they will help to meet national and European environmental requirements. The Department should also provide more detail on the potential alternative methods of achieving environmental outcomes, such as improved water quality, which new infrastructure is designed to achieve.

8 Defra’s Consultation process 67. The Government’s criteria for effective consultation set out in its Code of Practice on Consultation include the requirement that “formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome”. 124 However, various statements in the draft NPS appear to close off the possibility of revision of key areas. For example, the draft NPS states that it must be designated if the UK is to meet its obligations under the Urban Waste-Water Treatment and Water Framework Directives, and offers no alternative options for achieving this. 125 Additionally, the draft NPS appears to offer a fait accompli in regard to the Thames Tunnel, citing it the “preferred infrastructure solution” since 2007. 126 68. Whilst Defra’s consultation allows for revisions in the light of responses to its specific questions, statements in the draft NPS suggest that there is no room for revisions on fundamental issues such as the need to designate the NPS and the need for the two identified London projects. Defra should clarify in its response to this Report how it has taken into account responses to all aspects of its draft NPS consultation in order to fulfil the Government’s requirement that formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome. 69. A further principle in the Government’s consultation code is that consultation exercises should be “designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach”. 127 We received no evidence that consultation on specific projects such as the Thames Tunnel (which is conducted separately from consultation on the draft NPS) is anything other than adequate and indeed we heard from Thames Water of extensive consultation work undertaken in advance of a formal planning application being submitted. 128 However, the Defra consultation on the draft NPS itself has been low key and garnered only a low number of responses. 129 The GLA told us Defra was only conducting a “token consultation” and that the Department appeared to place “too much weight” on the draft NPS as a consultation document when it was unlikely that all but the most dedicated and well informed interest groups would comment on it. 130 The Mayor’s Advisor on the Environment, Isabel Dedring, told us that “not everyone affected knows that [the NPS

124 HM Government, Code of Practice on Consultation, July 2008, p 4. 125 Draft NPS, p 6, para 1.5.3. 126 Draft NPS, p 21, paras 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. 127 HM Government, Code of Practice on Consultation, criterion 4, July 2008, p 4. 128 Qq 93, 94, 101, 102 129 Defra received 38 submissions by the end of its consultation period in February 2011. 130 Ev 56

24


consultation] is happening. They may well know that the Tunnel consultation is happening but not the NPS consultation”. 131 70. A consultation on a specific project with immediately identifiable impacts, such as the Thames Tunnel, could be expected to generate far greater interest than a consultation on a generic policy document such as the NPS. Nonetheless, the response to the Defra consultation appears disappointing. We recommend that any future consultation on a draft NPS is given a higher profile, particularly with the local authority and planning communities.

9 Conclusions 71. We recognise that there are likely to be only two major projects coming forward within the lifetime of this NPS—the Thames Tunnel and the replacement of Deephams Sewage Treatment Works—and we address both in this Report. However, the NPS needs primarily to establish robust generic criteria to give decision makers clarity on the principles they will be expected to apply to any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The NPS will be enhanced by removing the poorly drafted locationally specific sections, the inclusion of which confuses the logic of the document, to focus on the generic principles which should guide decision makers. 72. Furthermore, the generic sections need to be revised since they lack sufficient detail and clarity. The draft NPS should not have been published for consultation and scrutiny until more complete. This NPS should not be designated until those deficiencies are corrected. 73. Given the importance of this NPS in delivering waste water and water quality objectives, we recommend that it be subject to a debate on the floor of the House of Commons on an amendable motion prior to designation.

131 Q 136


25

Conclusions and recommendations 1.

We recommend that the draft NPS be revised to provide comprehensive and effective sign-posting to assist decision makers in accessing the full sources of policy advice to which the document refers. (Paragraph 13)

2.

We recommend that the NPS be revised to define more clearly those terms whose interpretation is subjective so as to provide decision makers with clarity on their meaning in the context within which they are used. The NPS should also be amended to include guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘associated development’ for waste water infrastructure purposes. (Paragraph 16)

3.

We recommend that the NPS be amended to remove inclusion in an Asset Management Plan as a criterion for proving need for a project. (Paragraph 23)

4.

Inclusion within the Environment Agency’s National Environment Programme is less contentious a criterion for determining need. However, the NPS should set out clearly the process by which projects are accepted for inclusion in the Programme and are thereby deemed to be needed on environmental grounds. (Paragraph 24)

5.

We recommend that Defra revises the NPS to set out in detail the basis of its assessment for the potential of alternative approaches to mitigate the need for new infrastructure, such as the increased use of sustainable drainage systems and water efficiency measures to reduce the production of waste water. (Paragraph 30)

6.

We recommend that Defra undertakes within 12 months a full assessment of the potential national impact of widespread adoption of SUDs and water efficiency programmes for existing as well as new housing stock on future waste water infrastructure needs and that this be taken into account in any future revisions of the Waste Water NPS. (Paragraph 32)

7.

We recommend that the NPS be revised to provide clearer guidance for decision makers as to how they should balance the relative weights of different impacts and that it set out the criteria for making judgements on the extent to which short-term, local impacts should be tolerated in order to deliver long-term, wider gains. (Paragraph 35)

8.

The wording of the NPS must fully reflect existing statutory provisions which decision makers would be expected to take into account in order to protect greenfield spaces. (Paragraph 37)

9.

Approval of the costs which can be passed on to water and sewerage company customers is rightfully a core Ofwat function under its current regulatory remit and it is hard to see the benefits to be gained from duplicating this activity within the spatial planning process. In view of the alarming increases in estimated costs, Ofwat must fully utilise its regulatory powers to scrutinise the economic case for the Thames Tunnel project and be rigorous in determining which costs should be passed on to Thames Water’s customers. (Paragraph 40)

26


10.

We recommend that Ministers clarify that the NPS does not fetter the IPC or other decision makers’ ability to apply their judgement so as to impose the standards most appropriate to the local circumstances of specific projects. (Paragraph 43)

11.

The statement of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) justifying development of this NPS should be strengthened to reflect the considerable environmental benefits which a streamlined planning regime can deliver through enabling timely completion of necessary waste water infrastructure projects. (Paragraph 45)

12.

The draft NPS should be revised to make more detailed reference to increases in greenhouse gas emissions that waste water infrastructure projects could cause and to provide stronger guidance to decision makers on the mitigation measures they should consider imposing on project applicants. (Paragraph 48)

13.

We recommend that the Government urgently brings forward proposals to amend the Planning Act 2008 to bring large-scale sewage collection and transfer schemes such as the Thames Tunnel within the planning regime for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. (Paragraph 53)

14.

We recommend that the draft NPS be revised to produce a purely generic document by removing Chapters 3 and 4 on the replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel. Defra may wish to provide material in an annex exemplifying points made in the NPS by reference to specific schemes, but it should be made clear that it does not constitute information to which decision makers must have regard when considering project applications. (Paragraph 61)

15.

We recommend that Defra include in any justification of new waste water infrastructure projects full explanation as to how they will help to meet national and European environmental requirements. The Department should also provide more detail on the potential alternative methods of achieving environmental outcomes, such as improved water quality, which new infrastructure is designed to achieve. (Paragraph 66)

16.

Defra should clarify in its response to this Report how it has taken into account responses to all aspects of its draft NPS consultation in order to fulfil the Government’s requirement that formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome. (Paragraph 68)

17.

We recommend that any future consultation on a draft NPS is given a higher profile, particularly with the local authority and planning communities. (Paragraph 70)

18.

The draft NPS should not have been published for consultation and scrutiny until more complete. This NPS should not be designated until those deficiencies are corrected. (Paragraph 72)

19.

Given the importance of this NPS in delivering waste water and water quality objectives, we recommend that it be subject to a debate on the floor of the House of Commons on an amendable motion prior to designation. (Paragraph 73)


27

Formal Minutes Wednesday 30 March 2011 Members present: Miss Anne McIntosh, in the Chair Tom Blenkinsop Thomas Docherty Richard Drax George Eustice

Mrs Mary Glindon Neil Parish Dan Rogerson Amber Rudd

Draft Report (The draft National Policy Statement (NPS) on Waste Water), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read. Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 to 73 read and agreed to. Summary agreed to. Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House. Ordered, That the Chair do make the Report to the House. Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No.134. Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report. [Adjourned till Tuesday 5 April at 9.30 am

28


Witnesses Tuesday 18 January 2011

Page

Regina Finn, Chief Executive and Keith Mason, Director of Finance and Networks, Ofwat

Ev 1

Ed Mitchell, Director, Environment and Business, and Ian Baker, Head of Water, Environment Agency

Ev 7

Tuesday 25 January 2011 Richard Aylard, External Affairs and Sustainability Director, and Phil Stride, Head of Tideway Tunnels, Thames Water

Ev 12

Isabel Dedring, Mayor’s Adviser on the Environment, GLA, and Cllr Catherine West, Chair, London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee and Leader of London Borough of Islington

Ev 19

Wednesday 16 February 2011 Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, John Bourne, Director for Water Supply, and Andrea Marston, Head of Thames Tunnel Project Team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Ev 29

List of printed written evidence 1

Ofwat

Ev 42

2

Environment Agency

Ev 48

3

Thames Water

Ev 52

4

Greater London Authority

Ev 54

5

London Councils

Ev 57

6

Defra

Ev 60

List of additional written evidence (published on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/efracom) Infrastructure Planning Commission

Ev w1

Consumer Council for Water (CCWater)

Ev w2

Water UK

Ev w6

Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group

Ev w8

STOPtheSHAFT Putney & Barnes

Ev w13

Natural England

Ev w15


29

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.

Session 2010–11 First Report

Future Flood and Water Management Legislation

HC 522

Second Report

The Marine Policy Statement

HC 635

Third Report

Farming in the Uplands

HC 556

First Special Report

The National Forest: Government response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2009–11

HC 400

Second Special Report Dairy Farmers of Britain: Government response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2009–10

HC 401