Agenda item

1.    Robin Bishop, Managing Director of Technical and Development Services Group Limited (TDS) explained the background of TDS to Members of the Sub-Committee.  Mr Bishop was the Managing Director of TDS which supported the construction sector and engaged with the utility sector on behalf of developers to assess market competition, fair pricing and project feasibility.   Mr Bishop came from a technical background and TDS had 4 regional offices and one headquarters and covered the whole of England and Wales.  There were differences in the working practices of developers and utilities companies across the country. 

2.    Mr Bishop explained some of the problems faced by developers, including:

a.    Water and sewerage element – companies unwilling to vary standard costings

b.    Sewerage companies responding that there is no capacity for developments

c.    Companies unwilling to forecast and making no provision for development sites therefore resulting in additional costs

3.    Mr Bishop highlighted a development for which South East Water had identified the area and brought schemes forward but Southern Water had stated that there was no capacity.  Delays arose where utilities companies did not forecast until there was some certainty about developments.  Some schemes took 12 months to design and another 12 months to start work.  This was stopping developments moving forward in a timely manner, developers were sitting on the land because there wasn’t the infrastructure to go forward, and utilities companies would prefer the developers to fund the schemes.

4.    It was considered that utilities companies could be more open and amenable to discussions. However there was a good relationship with South East Water. 

5.    There was a discussion around the responsibility for clearing sewers, for example.  It was considered that some utilities companies used the developers to improve their networks.  Developers could use S106 agreements to connect to sewers; companies wanted a clause in planning consents to ensure developers took responsibility for connections. 

6.    It was thought that capacity was not as issue, money was being spent upsizing sewers for storm conditions. Members considered that when looking at the big picture there were elements of the system that were not working, but were water companies in breach of their statutory duty in any way?  Mr Bishop explained that his company did challenge utilities regulators on behalf of developers where there were problems.  Water authorities needed to be more forward thinking.  There was a need to allow for future development and future expansion, utilities companies often blamed the local authorities and their lack of housing policies preventing them from forecasting need. 

7.    Mr Bishop also alerted Members to highways insisting on dual networks because they did not want services crossing the main highways.  This was doubling up on cost. 

8.    The Chairman offered that the sub-committee write to the Government Minister explaining that there were requirements to build houses but there were some major inhibitors. 

9.    Q:  do you think the new charging regime will benefit both large and small developments equally?  Mr Bishop stated that he did not think it would benefit equally, he had been told that charges would vary, it was considered that infrastructure charges needed to be stabilised across the county. 

10. Mr Pearman, who was substituting for the Cabinet Member, stated that there were huge complexities surrounding the issues and utilities in general.  They were under public ownership without a business focus.  He considered that the situation would remain unless it was cracked.  If the situation resolved would Mr Bishop’s company go out of business?  Mr Bishop responded by explaining that in part, yes but partly TDS was in business because the issues had got more complex.  TDS was working alongside bigger consulting engineers who didn’t understand the legislation/regulations.  TDS was trying to get the best value for developers and would challenge where there were high prices.  There was a gap in the market place between large developers and smaller developers and that gap was growing.  There was also a shortfall in finding staff to work on developments that understand the complexities of the issues.     

11. A Member asked whether there was a body with statutory power and a relevant framework encompassing all issues to direct questions to?  Mr Bishop explained that there was not a body overseeing all companies, there were regulators which were fairly toothless.  Members considered that there were too many regulators, which  were toothless and only looked after their own companies. 

12. One Member asked whether the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation helped?  Mr Bishop explained that it did help and was a positive way forward.

13. In response to a question about the regulators and what would make them more powerful Mr Bishop suggested that independence might make them more powerful.  Other Members agreed that a statutory regulatory body was necessary and asked whether there was any way Mr Bishop could assist in lobbying Government to ensure statutory body.  Mr Bishop explained that he did lobby Government, frequent changes to Government ministers made this more difficult. 

14. One Member considered that the only alternative was to make the market work properly and this was a challenge.

15. In response to a question about good practice Mr Bishop highlighted Seven Trent which had changed its way of working, and its culture.   

RESOLVED that the Committee thank Mr Bishop for a very informative presentation and for his clear answers to questions from Members.