Agenda item

(1)       Ms Buntine gave a presentation on KCC’s responsibilities under Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act and its future duties in respect of Sustainable Drainage approval. She said that the law, once commenced, set out that construction work with drainage implications could not be commenced unless a drainage system for the work had been approved by the approving body (in this case KCC).  The approving body (SAB) had to grant permission if it was satisfied that the drainage system complied with National Standards for sustainable drainage. 

(2)       Ms Buntine explained that sustainable drainage elements could be landscaped or hard-engineered, and that they aimed to mimic natural processes. 

(3)       Ms Buntine turned to the drainage approval process, which began with pre-application consultation before an application either to the Local Planning Committee or, directly, to the SAB.  The drainage approval process ran parallel to and independently of the planning process.

(4)       Mr Scholey asked how much consultation had taken place between KCC and the District planning authorities in respect of the arrangements. He also asked for clarification on whether a District planning authority could decide to reject the SAB’s advice in respect of planning applications. Ms Buntine replied that it was acceptable for a planning authority to disregard the SAB’s advice when determining a planning application, given that the SAB was a statutory consultee to the planning process.  It remained the case that the SAB would exercise its role in respect of the drainage approval process.

(5)       Ms Buntine then considered the role of SABs in detail.  Their first task was to respond to pre-consultation by assessing applications against a number of principles designed to ensure that surface runoff was managed both on the surface and at its source wherever it was practical and affordable. These principles were assessed against the criteria of drainage hierarchy, peak flow rate and volume, water quality and function.  The second task was to ensure compliance with national standards by issuing technical approvals and carrying out adoption inspections. Lastly, they would adopt specific SuDS and carry out ongoing maintenance.

(6)       Ms Buntine briefly set out the roles of the various KCC Departments in delivering the SAB role and then explained the financial implications. It was intended that the role would be self-funding through application fees and inspection costs. There remained, however, a lack of clarity over maintenance cost recovery.

(7)       Ms Buntine described the Defra implementation timetable which would culminate with the legislation being laid before Parliament in January 2014 with the intention of commencing in April 2014.  KCC would undertake a series of District workshops in the New Year.  SuDS would be promoted through pre-application advice and workshops with developers.

(8)       Ms Buntine summed up her presentation by saying that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 gave KCC a statutory duty to approve, and in certain circumstances, adopt and maintain drainage systems for new developments.  KCC already had a strong skill set in flood management and drainage which would be built upon to deliver the SAB role.  It was expected that the SAB would be self-funding through pre-application charges, application fees and maintenance fees, although the charging and fee structure had not been fully announced by Defra.

(9)       Dr Eddy asked how the establishment of SABs would link with the work of local district planning authorities and whether there was a danger that local knowledge of drainage conditions would be undermined by national standards.  Ms Buntine replied that SABs would need to carefully explain their needs and expectations to local planners.  At the same time, they would need to ensure that local knowledge was fully taken into account.  The Act did not specify that planning authorities needed to be consulted, but she considered it to be fundamental that they were.

(10)     In response to a question from Mr Vye, Ms Buntine confirmed that there was an ability to appeal against a SAB decision. 

(11)     Ms Buntine replied to a question from Mr Muckle by explaining that implementation would be phased, starting with major applications for more than 10 homes or greater than 0.5 ha, moving to minor and permitted developments over 100m² in size after three years. 

(12)     Ms Buntine agreed with Mr Scholey’s comment that elected members from District Councils needed to be included in the consultation process.  She agreed that KCC should consider the option of offering to give presentations at or before District Council Planning meetings. 

(13)     Mr Rogers commented that there would be a great deal of duplication of roles as Planning Committees already had the responsibility of considering drainage implications. He noted that KCC had the option of delegating the role to another public body and asked why this option had not found favour. Ms Buntine replied that although the function could be delegated, this did not apply to the actual responsibility. Consequently, there would need to be oversight. Mr Tant added that only one of Kent’s Districts had indicated that it had the capacity to take these duties on.

(14)     Mr Hills commented that he did not believe that the Districts and IDBs had sufficient manpower to fully carry out this new responsibility.  He considered that standards and consistency would best be maintained if KCC as the only Kent-wide authority carried out the role.

(15)     Mr Cooke said that the IDBs wished to be consulted not only for proposed developments in their own areas but also for those in their wider catchment areas.

(16)     Mr Lewin said that it was important to have service levels defined within a memorandum or service agreements in order to ensure a clear communication channel between the District authorities and the SAB.  This would ameliorate the risk of the local planning authorities seeing some of their spatial planning powers eroded, whilst also enabling effective consultation during the preparation and review of Local Plans.

(17)     RESOLVED that KCC’s new responsibilities under Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act with respect to Sustainable Drainage approval be noted, together with comments made during consideration of this matter.