Agenda item

Representatives from Southern Water have been invited to make a presentation to the committee and to answer questions prepared by the committee and sent to them in advance of the meeting. The committee is requested to consider this information and to raise any further comments or recommendations in order that the Council continues to achieve positive engagement with Southern Water in relation to plan-making and determining planning applications.

The committee considered a report by Mr M Allgrove and Mr T Whitty (copy attached to the official minutes) which included at Appendix 1 Southern Water’s (SW) response to questions set by the committee.

Mr P Kent, Environment & Wastewater Strategy Manager, and Mrs B Rhead, Stakeholder Engagement Manager (Sussex), both of SW, attended to answer questions.

A number of questions had been received in advance of the meeting (copy attached to the official minutes). Mr R Seabrook, a member of the public, was asked to read his questions and officers and SW representatives responded as follows:

·         Queried the formula for averaging headroom – Work on assessing dry weather flow is undertaken on a three year average; sometimes SW may use a four year average if the weather has been particularly wet. The Chichester Water Quality Group which involves the council, Environment Agency (EA), Natural England and SW has taken a view that because of the region and its weather patterns it is probably fairer to take a seven year average to calculate headroom. SW doesn’t want to operate a treatment works which is under capacity and which will not produce high quality effluent which would subsequently put SW at risk of prosecution. When there is a storm event the excess flow goes into the storm tanks; when the storm abates this flow will go into the treatment works and out with the effluent.

·         Delays in discharge notification - On release of discharge into the harbour SW notifies the Harbour Board and they have a system for disseminating the information. SW are looking at producing the data in a user-friendly format to be made available to the Harbour Board to load onto their website for all to access. Users would not necessarily look at the SW website for this information.

·         Discrepancies in discharge notification – An amendment was suggested to the question to reflect a 346 ‘minute’ (not hour) discharge. On this particular occasion there was no release into the harbour and therefore it doesn’t appear on the records. The data has been passed on to EA and they are satisfied.

·         Is telemetry unreliable? SW try to work in real-time as much as possible; it is better to notify in error than not at all.

Mr Oakley had put forward to the committee a number of questions to give an idea of the incidents around the Tangmere area:

·         Queried the framework SW use to enter into agreements with developers which is separate to the planning process - The developer may gather background data and approach SW to ask if there is capacity in system to build houses. SW, through contractors, would do a desktop exercise to say yes or no, with conditions attached, so the developer has some evidence that he can discharge to the sewerage system. SW then seeks a restriction on any planning approval to the effect  that the developer can't build or occupy the first tranche of properties until it agrees a discharge route for the waste water. As the developer progresses he then requests to connect to SW’s sewerage system and SW undertakes a Section 98 Agreement where a more detailed survey of the sewerage system is undertaken with the nearest point of capacity that the developer can connect to without risk. There would be nothing stopping the developer applying for the S98 Agreement earlier on except that if he doesn't get planning approval that would be money lost. There is separate legislation for both SW and the planning authority to deal with. The issue that can arise is that the developer deals with SW directly but still has to address the planning process. The developer needs to ensure that it is meeting any planning conditions imposed.  

·         The issue of communicating that both the S98 and planning conditions have both to be complied with – The S98 Agreement and the planning conditions imposed by the planning authority are parallel processes and it is up to the developer to ensure that it is not only addressing the water conditions set by SW but also meeting the planning conditions imposed by the planning authority. SW normally follow up with the planning authority to confirm that successful connection has taken place to the point SW had suggested.

·         The other issues raised by Mr Oakley which are site specific will be dealt with separately.

Mr G Barrett had requested to ask a question to SW as follows:

·         Over many years the western peninsula has faced major sewage incidents due to the inadequacies of the system and the causes have now been identified as a total inadequacy of the pipework/network. A year ago it was agreed between officers, members and SW to set up a focus group to meet every three months. The first meeting of the Manhood Drainage Partnership was held in early May 2016, delayed due to SW’s undertaking to produce an action plan. No further meeting has been scheduled. More development is taking place on the peninsula and nothing further has been done to the existing inadequate network. There is talk of further sewage surcharges again. Queried what could be done to expedite this issue – Mr Kent undertook to liaise directly with Mr Barrett to address the issue.

The committee made the following comments which were answered by SW and officers:

·         Queried SW funding sources – As a regulated industry the customer pays for SW’s activities to cover both operating and capital expenditure. A case is put forward say for the expansion of wastewater treatment works and the regulator, Ofwat, looks at SW’s business plan and decide the commitments and the amount customers pay.

·         Concerned that the timing of development is more important to SW than the location and that new capacity follows delivery of a development - SW is committed to their five year business plan but this may require adjustment when new development requires further work. The developer pays for sewer capacity, SW for treatment capacity. By collecting information and statistics this allows SW to see the capacity shortfall before the developer starts work. SW will have discussed this with the developer who will be aware of those constraints.

·         Constraints in development going ahead due to lack of headroom capacity – SW collects information to allow them to see the capacity shortfall ahead of development work and to raise the funding. Sometimes development work will start without the necessary infrastructure in place but that will be caught up later. However it is rare that a development doesn’t go ahead because of lack of headroom capacity.

·         Delivery of the Local Plan is critical – queried whether the need for further SW infrastructure was constraining permitted development being built- Planning applications for major development are progressed 12-18 months before a development starts. Westhampnett and West of Chichester have both been the subject of recent outline planning applications with permission granted at Westhampnett and there is no adverse impact on housing coming forward. Officers are working with Environment Agency and SW to ensure that there is an understanding of when that capacity is available and that is doesn’t inhibit development coming on stream. There has been no adverse impact on housing coming forward. It is different for Apuldram as there is no possibility to increase the headroom due to environmental constraints on sewage there and the deposition of the harbour.

·         Queried whether planning conditions imposed put impossible actions in front of SW and whether the council should be enforcing conditions more thoroughly – SW doesn’t consider that there are draconian requirements within planning approval e.g. developer can't start construction or occupy first houses until they have reached agreement with SW about how the site can be drained. If the council imposes a condition and the developer doesn't comply then we should expect to have the backup of SW to enforce that condition. If the developer subsequently proposes an alternative solution then he needs to come back to the council and agree this through the planning process.

·         Queried SW plans when the Local Plan expires in 13 years’ time – A total of 3266 properties are reliant on an upgrade of the Tangmere Waste Water Treatment Works, which is slightly more than the overall capacity of the upgrade.  However, there is capacity to accommodate the proposed development set out in the local plan. The way SW construct treatment works today is in modular format. In 13 years time if Tangmere needs more development it can be added on.

·         Queried how SW would manage the discharge into the rife at Aldingbourne - All treatment works have a permit to discharge. When SW are looking to put more treatment works in it needs to satisfy a 'no detriment'  quality permit, i.e. it will have the same load on the water course. There is a need to meet tighter standards the more SW put through.

·         SW has published a route for a new rising main in the north ward of Chichester. Queried whether this would help problems in places like Lavant and Boxgrove – SW advised that it would stop it getting worse as it is taking the flow to a different treatment works. A survey of the sewerage system has been completed and marginal improvements have been made. SW needs to agree with EA to go ahead and then develop an action plan which will be shared with members.  Mr Kent advised that it is an issue which SW is committed to addressing but it is not a quick fix and may take many years to fix. He promised to chase this up.

·         Queried whether SW was liable to pay money to people who may have suffered damage from flooding – SW advised that in most instances residents had household insurance and this would cover any flooding. However they would consider individual circumstances.

·         Queried whether horse manure had an effect on the system – Mr Kent advised that it shouldn’t get into the system and that it therefore wouldn’t have a significant impact.

·         Queried whether a pipe could be installed to discharge out at sea instead of into the harbour and whether it would improve capacity for Apuldram – SW advised that it wasn’t a cost effective solution.

·         Queried the capacity at Thornham – Mr Kent did not have that data but would respond to the committee with an up to date figure.

·         It was ten years since SW was fined roughly £20m for incorrect information. There was still a perception that SW waste disposal falls short. Queried whether there was something fundamentally wrong with SW and the way it gets its funding – SW funding comes from its customers but it also needs to borrow money. 

·         Queried the current future and planned investment in pipework infrastructure versus the required investment to reduce the problems - Mr Kent advised that SW spends £20-30m a year in maintaining and improving the infrastructure, and slightly in excess of that on waste water treatment. They have an environmental improvement programme of £50m year to improve the quality of effluent. The whole business is somewhere in the region of £3b in terms of capital costs. The funding is not an issue, it is spending it at the right time, but also a need to recognise that it won't get large sums like that from customers; SW needs to plan incrementally.

·         Queried whether the detail could be collated at Chichester district level only – Mr Kent undertook to dissect some figures for the Chichester district area only and to let members have the information. Also to detail what investment SW currently have in place and what is required to solve the area’s problems.

·         A large part of the district is rural; there is a large surface water runoff into ditches and water courses. Queried how watercourses and ditches flow rates are monitored - SW has no direct role in this. Riparian owners are maintaining them. Some will be the responsibility of the county or district councils. It is a complex issue. Where SW has information and intelligence it can work with others. This will be done on the Manhood peninsula. Need to consider the quality of those watercourses and the impact agriculture has on it and work with farmers. SW undertook to send members an A4 sheet showing responsibilities.

·         Nitrate levels are high on the Downs; queried the impact on water quality – Mr Kent acknowledged that this had got worse and needed to be addressed. Again there was a need to engage with farmers and landowners to understand and address the issues. It was suggested that the Manhood Drainage Partnership could be used for this purpose. Mr Kent confirmed that SW could make a start by linking with this focus group and widening its remit.

·         Queried how SW educates the public and suggested that wider publicity could be given to SW initiatives in the Council's newsletter – Mr Kent advised that there was a SW team of six people who had recently been talking to local people about a blockage hotspot. Benchmarking had been done to increase public perception and feedback received about how SW engage with stakeholders in the future. Mr Carvell sits on one of the stakeholder panels.

·         SW is starting to develop the next Business Plan. A series of stakeholders workshops will take place in the Autumn and members’ views are welcomed and they are invited to play a role in how SW develops its plans.

·         Queried SW’s plans for improving capacity beyond what is required in the current Local Plan e.g. to deal with the impact of Southern Gateway and other unplanned growth – SW will work closely with developers and the planning officers to ensure that the infrastructure is there for development when it goes ahead. The key critical evidence base will be the wastewater treatment study.

Mr Hayes, Chairman of the council’s Planning Committee, advised that the Planning Committee was told that flooding events were 1 in 500 years. As Chairman of the committee he needed to have confidence in the figures provided by SW. Mr Kent advised that SW was trying to predict the future. When new sewers were put in the ground SW designed for water flows which are uprated by 20% to cover climate change.

RESOLVED

1.       That a meeting be arranged with interested parties to include the Environment Agency, Southern Water, West Sussex County Council, this council and other relevant bodies to investigate and identify a way forward to resolve the issue of flooding as a result of riparian watercourses.

2.       The council investigates the imposition of better planning conditions for dealing with foul water drainage which reflect the requirements of individual sites and ensure that these conditions are properly enforced over the lifetime of the development.

3.       Southern Water is requested to provide written answers to those questions that were not able to be answered at the meeting.