Progress report on AW actions following December Meeting
Update on flooding / drainage issues new housing developments
Minutes:
Grant Tuffs, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Lead (SPPAL) from Anglian Water (AW) updated the committee on key issues raised by members since their last visit, including storm overflow data and details on investment into their assets.
With the rise in summer temperatures, AW thanked the council after an amber heat health alert was announced and their communications team had assisted in getting that message across to residents. There had been a national water efficiency campaign and a local campaign called ‘Small Changes, Big Difference’ by AW to help preserve water resource at times of such high demand.
The SPPAL also brought to the committee’s attention AW Thriving Communities Fund, which was again open to applications for local projects, amongst other things, looking to support water sustainability and the environment. The SPPAL promised to send members details of how to apply.
Hannah Wilson, the AW Planning Manager (PM), outlined what their strategic site process entailed and what the criteria was for them to comment on new major planning applications. AW had worked closely with The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MCHLG) and the Environment Agency (EA) on this approach, and they would need the necessary investment to deliver their promise to deliver the infrastructure needed. DEFRA and AW had sent a guide to developers and planning authorities outlining the agreed approach.
AW said, in relation to many critical medium and smaller developments, they were actively working to enable that growth whilst protecting their customers and the environment.
In response to a concern raised by the Chair, the PM advised AW would object to all applications where there was no Water Recycling Centre (WRC) capacity and overcoming issues at WRC was a long-term project. Answering Cllr Leith’s question, AW acknowledged where developers used their absolute right to connect was a cause for concern.
Cllr Hankins expressed some concern that temporary services might be installed during development, however the PM said they would not be adopted by AW.
Cllr Dixon felt that until Members visited a WRC they could not fully understand the scale, or cause, of the problem. Investment was not the sole answer, but they needed to identify and confront the underlying cause. He asked for NNDC to fully engage with the issue of foul and surface water as many applications were approved even when AW had objected. He asked that a stronger working relationship was forged between the NNDC planning team and the AW pre-planning department to ensure a greater weight was added to any objections raised.
Cllr Dixon requested the Committee adopt a recommendation that Members visit water recycling centres, and that the Committee look at the Strategic Flood Alliance at the County Council and the Norfolk Lead Local Flood Authority.
The PM explained that AW were not a statutory consultee but there could be an opportunity in future regulatory changes to be added.
In follow-up to a query by Cllr Gray, it was noted by Cllr Shires that the current method for Members to raise local water issues to AW was not working as many emails were not acknowledged or replied to until many weeks later. AW assured the committee this would be fed back to their relevant team, but they always endeavoured to respond as quickly as possible.
Cllr Brown challenged AW on the inadequate infrastructure that was delaying as many as 14.5k properties, in an area AW cover, from being built and if there were any allocated sites within the district’s local plan that were a cause for concern. The PM explained it was based on how OFWAT calculated their investment for growth. AW were pushing for it to be based on figures from local planning authorities.
AW admitted they could not keep objecting to planning applications and must get their infrastructure up to standard and they were slowly working towards a position where this was possible. They explained that growth investment in WRC came from customers. Developers’ contributions came through an infrastructure charge that was shared across the region and solely reinvested to improve the foul drainage network.
The committee were assured by AW, after a query from Cllr Penfold, that, although it was dependent on dry or wet summers, resulting in spills potentially peaking at times, overall, they were going down. They were making a £1bn investment, through the storm overflow reduction plan to tackle the issues and to reduce to fewer than 10 per year. Cllr Gray felt customers paid a lot of money to know what was going on and that data should be simplified so everyone could have insight into that data quickly and in a format they understood. AW confirmed they have a live map on their website showing spill data, which they were legally obliged to do, but would take any comments onboard as always open for ways to improve the service.
The PM reassured Cllr Heinrich, when he said residents were rightly concerned about surface water and storm overflows across much of North Norfolk. AW said they were reliant on planning case officers to raise those concerns with them so they could object, and they would take into consideration where residents had suffered previous issues with flooding etc. to help inform their recommendation. The PM agreed to share the criteria for assessing planning applications near existing known flooding hotspots.
Cllr Heinrich also pointed out that many water towers were extremely old and not designed to cope with the level of demand that was expected of them. AW explained they did work with their water resource management team to understand what the requirement was for the long term. They went on to say that there was a requirement for long term market wide knowledge for water and wastewater and they would utilise planning to support new developments in asking for phasing conditions, allowing them to view new developments in isolation and then at their cumulative impact on the entire water network. The PM said they’d signed up to a scheme called Water Use Standard with the Environment Agency (EA), Natural England and other water companies to educate customers to keep water use down to an economical level.
The SPPAL said that infrastructure projects can take a long time to deliver alongside proposed introduction of water efficiency ratings, as with energy products on white goods etc. and the implementation of smart meters. AW confirmed they would be lobbying government to enforce rainwater harvesting as part of new developments.
The PM explained that their Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) acted like a matrix of current performance as well as growth intelligence of the local plans that were coming forward. They used the DWMP to help inform them of the flows and that data informed them what the future looked like so they could best focus and model their forthcoming work to meet those requirements, whether they be growth or environmental. The DWMP was going through a consultation of the new plan with webinars being offered to all interested parties.
In response to a query from Cllr Bayes, the PM explained that if a development goes ahead when AW had objected due to incapacity and infrastructure it put them in a reactive situation where they don’t have that investment planned and no money put aside to be able to meet those demands. It subsequently put them at a higher risk of the EA enforcing against them when there were additional spills, and meant they might have to look at less favourable solutions such as tankering flows from the site.
The Committee RESOLVED to recommend all Members to have an opportunity to visit a Water Recycling Centre, at Anglian Water discretion, to better inform Members of the working process and the impact on the region.
Action: