Agenda item

(1)       Mr Tant introduced the report by saying that the Flood and Water Management Act contained a Schedule which proposed to make KCC a drainage approval body, having the role of approving and potentially adopting drainage schemes from new developments.  This role would have sat alongside the planning application process.

(2)       Mr Tant went on to say that Defra had found it very challenging to bring about full implementation of this role due to concerns over how the adoption role would sit alongside planning and how long-term maintenance would be funded. 

(3)       In consequence, Defra had decided to consider different options to resolve the SuDS issue.In October 2014, Defra and DCLG had issued a consultation on an alternative approach.  This involved strengthening the planning regime around SuDS in terms of maintenance and enforcement.

(4)       Mr Tant referred to KCC’s response document which supported the general direction of the proposal but did not consider that it would achieve any improvement to current SuDS provision, particularly in respect of maintenance.  The consultation document had envisaged that maintenance of SuDS would be a planning condition subject to perpetual enforcement (which would be at odds with the existing enforcement regime).

(5)       DCLG had followed this with another consultation in December 2014.  This had included making Lead Local Flood Authorities statutory consultees within the planning regime for surface water on major developments.  This proposal was supported by KCC even though it was still considered that the proposal itself would not improve the type of SuDS or their long term maintenance.  

(6)       Mr Tant then said that KCC also had significant reservations about the New Burdens Assessment which set out what DCLG believed it would cost to implement and the revenue it would give to support it.  It was considered that the amount of time needed to fulfil this role was being significantly underestimated and also because there was no assessment in the document of the additional burden that would be placed on planning authorities.  One issue that had not been considered was that drainage details would often not be part of the original submission for a major planning application but would be submitted later as details in respect of a planning condition.  The time required to undertake the enforcement role had also not been included. 

(7)       Mr Tant added that the DCLG consultation period had now closed.  To date there had been no update from DCLG (even though it had been hoped that this would be published in time for oral communication to the Committee).  It was now expected on 20 March.

(8)       The Chairman commented that it had taken at least six years to reach this point and that maintenance remained a major issue.  He referred to the visit to the SuDS scheme at Singleton Hill in Ashford that the Committee had undertaken in March 2014, where the scheme itself had been excellent but had clearly suffered as a consequence of multiple bodies having responsibility for different parts of it.   

(9)       Mr Rogers said that he had received a copy of a letter written by the LGA  to Liz Truss, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He read out one of the recommendations which was:-

“In the longer term our view is that the responsibility for approval, adoption and maintenance of SuDS should sit with water and sewerage companies within their existing regulatory regime.  It is also our view that the cost of processing applications should be fully funded by the planning application scheme.”

(10)     Mr Tant that KCC would have some misgivings about water companies adopting them, because a number of water companies were not interested in sustainable drainage, preferring more traditional methods.  The concern was that this approach would not necessarily lead to the best sustainable drainage systems.  Nevertheless, KCC was not completely at odds with the LGA’s views because it did recognise the need for an adopting authority.

(11)      Mr Scholey said that DCLG seemed to believe that the SuDS issues could be resolved through planning conditions.  In his experience, planning conditions were effective up to the point where a property was transferred from the developer to the resident.  He asked how a planning condition could be enforced after the developer had left the site.

(12)     Mr Tant replied that he was not sure what mechanism the DCLG had in mind.  There would, he thought, be a charge for the wider use of the drainage system. He agreed that KCC considered the point Mr Scholey had made to be one of the grounds for its misgivings about the proposal.

(13)     Mr Harwood suggested that it could work if there was a legal agreement for long term maintenance signed by the developer at the time. 

(14)     Mr Vickery-Jones said that developers were often close to dismissive of what planners required of them. There had been many instances in Canterbury where the planning authority had been completely overruled by the Inspector at the planning appeal stage.  It was vital for the Districts that the strategic overview role (usually played by KCC) was clarified.

(15)     Mr Bowles said that the seriousness of the matter in hand contrasted with the delays in implementation which were occurring because of the lack of clear direction at the national level.  He did not believe that there was no solution to be found.  A full, focussed discussion involving all interested parties would be able to put an end to the cycle of consultation documents, which simply led to yet another round of consultation.  Meanwhile, sustainable drainage was being installed but not inspected or maintained.  He suggested that the Chairman and Cabinet Member should write to the Secretary of State stressing the urgent need for a solution that worked.

(16)   Mr Balfour said that KCC had written to the Secretary of State on a number of occasions over the previous six years whenever this topic had arisen.  He was willing to do so again in his role as the new Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

(17)     Mr Balfour went on to say that he was aware that it was perfectly simple to design a really good urban scheme with a SuDS element that was attractive and which could be maintained as it was part and parcel of the development. He agreed that responsibility was currently being passed from one body to the next and that it was not clear who was going to pay for it. He was also concerned over the practical problem of providing the designers of the schemes and the technical expertise within the planning authorities to analyse them.

(18)     At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Harwood described the new retail development on Bearsted Road near Junction 7 of the M20.  Ever since the retail scheme had gone in, the long-established local highway flooding had disappeared as a result of reductions in run-off achieved by the SuDS approach utilised within the site.  The drainage scheme utilised a void with stepped rock-filled gabions beneath the store which effectively reversed the flow of surface water within the site to facilitate more effective infiltration to groundwater.  This demonstrated that SuDS did not necessarily have to be a visible feature within a development and that it could work in higher density urban situations. 

(19)     Mrs Stockell said that it was likely that many developments in Kent would be completed before any SuDS work was actually undertaken.  She then said that the Water and Wastewater in Ashford Select Committee had met in 2000 and had recommended SuDS due to the high amount of concrete in Ashford which made effective water run-off difficult to achieve.  She noted that KCC was already providing three half-day workshops and asked whether there had been any feedback from them.

(20)     Mr Tant confirmed that KCC had undertaken training for the Districts in respect of the role that KCC had been expecting to fill.  This would continue into 2015/2016.

(21)     Mr Tant continued by saying that it was expected that the LLF Authorities would become statutory consultees for drainage schemes in new major developments.  This role would probably commence in April 2015.  There would also be consequential amendments to the NPPF in respect of sustainable development and its drainage.

(22)     Mr Tant replied to a question from Mrs Stockell by saying that work had been undertaken with internal KCC functions such as Property and Infrastructure Support in respect of school buildings. It was very important that KCC was seen as setting a good example in drainage matters. He added that a SuDS scheme was currently being developed for an extension to a school and that it was hoped that this would lead to further similar projects.

(23)     Dr Eddy said he was concerned about the number of substantial developments that were going through the planning process on the edge of Flood Plains or which were pumping water into systems that were already at full capacity.   He identified three areas which he suggested the Cabinet member should take up with the Minister. These were: Training, particularly for those involved in the planning process who might well be inexperienced in this particular area of work; Burdens, as much of the work was not being funded; and Maintenance of the long term sustainability of the SuDS.  He then said that he was interested in the relationship in thinking between that of KCC and that of the LGA and asked whether these two organisations were likely to be able to reach the point where they were a combined voice for Local Government.  He believed this to be essential if the issues he had raised were to be addressed.

(24)     Mr Tant replied that the only area of disagreement between KCC and the LGA was over whether the water companies were best placed to take responsibility. This was, however, not a fundamental difference.  The LGA had been negotiating on behalf of the local authorities with the DCLG over the new Burdens Assessment.  There were some differences as might be expected given the large number and diversity of local authorities involved.  Nevertheless, KCC and the LGA were very much of one mind in respect of the current consultation.

(25)     Mr Bowles said that Swale BC was desperately trying to recruit Planners.  The training that was likely to be required for them would be at the expense of their ability to swiftly deal with issues that arose, causing delays in process and implementation, and potentially leading to decisions on applications being taken by planning inspectors instead of local authorities.  He believed that there were a sufficient number of Kentish representatives on the LGA who were in a position to influence that organisation’s approach.  He would be discussing with the Leader of the Council the most effective way of doing so.

(26)     The Chairman suggested that someone in a position of authority within the LGA could be invited to speak to the next meeting of the Committee.  Mr Bowles undertook as a member of the LGA to invite someone on the Committee’s behalf.

(27)     Mr Tapp commented on the proposed exemption of minor developments from the revisions to the planning policy and guidance. He said that in some areas this could lead to 150 houses being built in batches of ten, effectively leaving a large development which was exempt from policy and guidance on local drainage systems.  He suggested that if there was to be an exemption the bar should be set at one or two rather than ten.

(28)     Mr Tapp then said that in respect of major developments which needed long term maintenance, the specifications in Ashford and Canterbury were extremely good.  He then asked whether there would be provision for KCC to request that charges be built into the registry deeds of people who bought the properties. He would be quite happy for this to be done through the rates but was not sure whether differential rates would be legal. 

(29)     Mr Bowles said that differential rates could not be applied by a billing authority.  The IDBs were not answerable to a local authority and were entitled to put up their precept as they considered appropriate.  In his view, the IDB precept should be included as a headline in the Council tax bill as this would enable them to be accountable for (and therefore able to explain) every increase.

(30)     Mr Balfour said that it was theoretically possible to hold the owner of a property to account in perpetuity. This would, though, be a very complicated process, involving high legal fees. 

(31)     Mr Rogers commented on the minor exemptions provisions in the consultation document by saying that at District level, planning authorities made numerous efforts to encourage SuDS by, for example, conditioning permeable surfacing.  He then said that a significant recent change in the planning process enabled pre-application consultation with the developers so that planning authorities could advise developers on a chargeable basis. He considered that this principle could be extended to Lead Flood Authorities to enable them to advise on SuDS at the pre-application stage.

(32)     The Committee expressed its concern over the lengthy and time-consuming consultation process which was delaying effective SuDS implementation and also confirmed that it wished to invite a representative from the LGA to speak at its next meeting.

(33)     RESOLVED that, subject to (32) above, the report be noted.