I have referred on other threads to the Housing and Planning Bill that is presently going through parliament.
On Tuesday, certain aspects of it were debated in the House of Commons. Our MP, Anne Marie Morris, spoke on the issue of Community Right of Appeal and Sustainable Drainage Systems (after all we do have a flooding/drainage issue in Dawlish, do we not?).
Click on this link to read what she had to say http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-05-03a.108.18&s=speaker%3A24912#g125.0
So she says one thing (arguing against the Planning Minister, Brandon Lewis, who wishes to disagree with many of the Lords amendments):
(on CRA) ...electing a local authority once every four years is not the same as giving local communities a voice in planning decisions that affect them. It is now time to look seriously at giving the community a real sense of democratic responsibility and accountability.
(and on sustainable drainage) ...I understand why the Minister wants to reject the proposal on SUDS, but in my south-west constituency, flooding has been a chronic issue. This is about proper funding as well as planning, and about ensuring that those who make infrastructure decisions understand the issues and are held to account. I cannot think of anybody better to do that than the community.
and does another:
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment...
This business about SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems). I didn't know until about a week ago that developers have an automatic right to connect into already existing pipes. Might that explain the sewage problem in the Secmaton Lane area (more and more houses = more and more people = more and more sewage = existing sewage network more and more not able to cope)?
Therefore, as I see it, until and unless, all new developements are required by law to have SUDS this sewage problem will only get worse and worse.
You bet Lynne we are of the opinion that the Gatehouse Farm system will connect to the Bovis Cavanagh pipe and flow down Secmaton Lane. But who cares houses get built.
The Housing and Planning Bill will be back in the House of Commons on Monday 9th May.
Amongst other issues, MPs will be debating the amendment shown below from the House of Lords (this amendment was also debated in the Commons earlier this week. It is the one that our MP spoke in favour of but then voted against. Don't ask me why. Ask her!).
The House of Lords is sending it back, unaltered, to the House of Commons.
This is what the House of Lords want the House of Commons to incorporate into the Housing and Planning Bill.
This is the Lords’ amendment:
Sustainable drainage systems
The latest version of the Bill contains an amendment to the Water Industry Act 1991 regarding the right to communicate with public sewers.
Currently, that Act states that the owner or occupier of any premises or the owner of any private sewer that drains a premises is entitled to connect their drains to the public sewer to discharge foul water and surface water. However, the new clause added to the Housing and Planning Bill states that this right to connect to the sewer can only be used if the relevant drainage system is a sustainable drainage system.
It effectively ends the right to connect to existing sewers unless the drainage system for new developments is a sustainable drainage system
I was confused, so looked up what SUDS actually is, simply it is a system where all rainwater is contained and released at the same rate it would have if no housing was present. In the past rainwater was put directly into the sewage system, therefore why some dwellings are on combined sewers. There are various SUDS types with the simplest being crates covered in a membrane that are put in the ground and all rainwater from the building's roof, paths are collected and piped into this retention area and due to the material it is slowly released. All new dwellings have to use this system or alternatives unless the circumstances are exceptional. This new method reduces the amount of water and enables more sewage capacity in the system. See the link below which is helpful.
http://www.sudswales.com/types/
and more info here http://www.susdrain.org/news/articles/sustainable_drainage_lords_win_bill_amendment.html
which, amongst other things, claims that the present legislation concerning SUDS in England is not enforced.
Maybe that's why SWW have been after Strongvox to make so many changes to the drainage system up there besides the problems with the pumping station.
Maybe Teignbridge got the capacity of water draining from the site wrong? See this extract below:
http://docimages.teignbridge.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=2509764&PageNo=1&PDF=true&nocd=true&content=obj.pdf
08 June 2011
I can advise that the hybrid SUDS / sewered drainage arrangements are acceptable to us. Importantly it is stressed that this is based upon a reassurance given to us by Teignbridge District Council (Martin Hutchings (TDC) / Steve Moore (EA)) that the Dawlish Warren Flood Alleviation Scheme has spare capacity to safely accommodate the increase volumes of water that will drain from the site in response to the development of the site in the manner proposed
Well, if that is the case maybe that is all the more reason why developers should have a legal obligation to provide additional drainage systems/SUDS.
BTW I have been told that our MP didn't speak in favour of the SUDS amendment but rather that she said the SUDS issue needed to be addressed but this amendment wasn't the right way to do it.
So, I have written to her asking her the obvious question ie what then, in her opinion, is the right way to do it? And pointing out to her (yet again) that the residents in Secmaton Lane in particular and the users of the A379 in general would like to see the issues caused by inadequate drainage systems addessed NOW and not in some few years time when the situation may have gotten even worse because of even more house building in the area.
From the Commons debate held on Tuesday 3rd May on Lords amendments concerning Community Right of Appeal and SUDS.
Brandon LewisMinister of State (Communities and Local Government)
Lords amendment 110 seeks to remove an automatic right to connect to the public sewer for surface water, unless a sustainable drainage system forms part of a development and is constructed in accordance with non-statutory technical standards and the planning permission. However, the proposed new clause, as currently drafted, is unnecessary and unworkable. First, it makes the right to connect conditional on complying with the terms of a planning permission that may not actually provide for such a drainage system. That might be because it is not viable or because there are on-site constraints.
Secondly, the new clause presumes that a process exists that determines whether or not a development is permitted to connect to the public sewer, where there is none. Thirdly, making the right to connect conditional on planning permission leaves open a number of issues, including what happens when connections are needed and where there is currently no requirement for planning permission to be obtained at all. That might include situations where water sewerage companies are exercising their statutory obligations to drain an area effectively.
Finally, the new clause, which would increase red tape and barriers to development, has no transitional arrangements and industry, especially smaller house builders, will struggle to respond without time to prepare, leading to delays in house building.
Anne Marie Morris responds:
The Minister is being generous in giving way. I understand his concerns about the current proposal, but he assumes that the authorities will determine that the drainage and infrastructure in place are adequate. I have a number of examples where, in my view and that of the community, that is not the case. If there was a way of appealing those decisions if they are not robust, to say that the draining infrastructure was not appropriate, I would feel much happier with what he is saying
Brandon Lewis responds:
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point, but I say again that one of the problems with the proposed new clause is that, as currently drafted, there would sometimes be an issue where there is actually no requirement for planning permission to be obtained in the first place.
Anne Marie Morris responds:
As the Minister knows, I have campaigned for a community right of appeal for many years, and it is now time to consider that issue seriously as there is more and more support for it across the House. The Ministersaid that the original right of appeal was introduced to redress the balance in favour of the landowner, who was effectively having his freedom taken away. I suggest that the time has come to redress the balance in favour of communities that, in the words of many, are now having development thrust upon them. I hope that the Minister will consider this issue, as it is perfectly possible to introduce a community right of appeal. That is not the same thing as a third-party right of appeal, and I am sure that he could come up with something that would work and not stop the building programme.
In defending his position, the Minister said that the community has a voice through the local authority. I understand where he is coming from, but electing a local authority once every four years is not the same as giving local communities a voice in planning decisions that affect them. It is now time to look seriously at giving the community a real sense of democratic responsibility and accountability. The Minister relies on the local authority to be the arbiter, but in many cases—certainly in my constituency—the local authority is conflicted, and an obligation to write a report will not solve the problem. One of the biggest issues—the Minister knows this, because I have spoken regularly to him about it—concerns infrastructure decisions, because at the moment there is no right of redress if the local authority gets something wrong. That is one of the most significant issues on my desk today.
I understand why the Minister wants to reject the proposal on SUDS, but in my south-west constituency, flooding has been a chronic issue. This is about proper funding as well as planning, and about ensuring that those who make infrastructure decisions understand the issues and are held to account. I cannot think of anybody better to do that than the community.
·
A Community Right of Appeal that would allow an infrastructure decision to be contested if 'the local authority gets something wrong' could of course not only be used for matters such as drainage, but also for roads. The link road between Sainsbury's and Gatehouse is a prime example.
Whether our MP had in mind the proposals by Teignbridge District Council (aided and abetted by Devon County Council) to bring forward the link road using Sandy Lane, Elm Grove Drive and Elm Grove Road for construction traffic when she spoke on Tuesday, is unlikely to be know as she rarely involves herself in individual planning matters. But it is perfectly clear to OUR community that OUR local authority has got things seriously - dangerously - wrong.
With a Community Right of Appeal the voices of the hundreds of residents who have spoken out against the current (deferred) plans in Dawlish would be able to be heard more loudly. The pressure on Teignbridge to deliver a wrong decision through the continuous threat of a costly appeal by developers would be balanced by the power of the community to do the same.
It is becoming clear that, however flawed this Housing and Planning Bill, the amendments that have been proposed by the Lords should be welcomed by our Government. The reforms have not been proposed to thwart development, but rather to give confidence to the public that what is being built is both soundly constructed and - in environmental, planning and provision terms - well considered.
It is to be hoped that A-MM will recognise how these reforms will ultimately benefit housing in this country - and will, at the next occasion to vote on the matter, more carefully consider her position.
Please 