Agenda item

(1)       Ms Bronwyn Buntine, the Sustainable Drainage Engineer said that the Flood and Water Management Act contained had a component on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).  She described SuDS as a means of managing surface water through means such as wetlands, ponds and ditches.  Kent County Council had been named as the “approving body.”  Schedule 3 of the Act would require construction work with drainage implications to have its drainage systems approved before construction could begin.

(2)       The Government had published draft National Standards in December 2011 and the consultation period had recently come to a close.   The main points were that connection to a sewer for the discharge of surface was no longer a right.   Drainage approval had to be sought for any construction with drainage implications.   The consultation document also included four draft statutory instruments which provided the legal framework for the approval and adoption process. 

(3)       Ms Buntine then considered the implications for Kent County Council as the approving body.  It would be required to make a decision on each minor application within 7 weeks and on major applications within 12.  Each application would be assessed against the National Standards and would have to be approved if it conformed to them.

(4)       There were also resource implications for Kent County Council.  It was estimated that it would need to deal with some 500 applications per year.  This would place additional demands on existing staff in terms of pre-planning, approval and adoption, and maintenance.  The proposed application fees for the first three years would be £350, rising to £7,500.   In addition, there would be a legal responsibility to give stop notices and enforcement notices if appropriate and the appeal procedures would be similar to those for planning applications, requiring officers to produce written representations and/or attend public inquiries. 

(5)       Kent County Council had responded to the consultation on the financial and technical issues, affordability, lack of consideration of matters following adoption, and conflicts with existing legislation.  The County Council had also expressed a preference for the implementation of Schedule 3 and the National Standards to commence on 1 April 2013, although DEFRA wanted a date of 1 October 2012.

(6)       Members commented on the enormity of the task ahead.  They considered that this was compounded by the antiquated nature of some of the current systems and the resource implications for the IDBs, who might not have the resources to respond to consultation in time to inform the approving body’s decision. 

(7)       Ms Buntine explained that the approval process would not need to be carried out by a Committee of elected Members. She agreed with Mr Muckle’s description that it would be similar to the process for building controls – albeit with a duty of maintenance attached to it. 

(8)       Mr Hibberd noted the pending introduction of the Public Health and Local Government Act.  He said that as drainage was a fundamental aspect of public health, the County Council’s SuDS responsibilities would impact on its overall health responsibilities as well.  He added that the Kent Design Guide would need to be reviewed in the light of the new provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act.

(9)       In response to a question from Mr Scholey, Ms Buntine said that the definition of SuDS was “a system that is not vested in a sewage undertaker.” This definition constituted the dividing line between the responsibilities of the County Council and the local IDB.  This still left a few grey areas where clarification would be needed.

(10)     RESOLVED that the report be noted.