Effect of national and local strategies: England

Amendment made: 49, in clause 11, page 8, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) In exercising its flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, an English risk management authority must—

(a) act in a manner which is consistent with the national strategy and guidance, and

(b) except in the case of a water company, act in a manner which is consistent with the local strategies and guidance.’.—(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

I beg to move Amendment 118, in Clause 11, page 8, line 20, leave out ‘consistent with’ and insert ‘have regard to’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 119, in Clause 11, page 8, line 29, leave out ‘consistent with’ and insert ‘have regard to’.

Amendment 120, in clause 12, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘consistent with’ and insert ‘have regard to’.

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I will not speak to the Amendment for long, to the relief, I am sure, of all hon. Members. It is a testing amendment, and we have already discussed in another context the difference between policies or activities having either to be consistent with a flood risk management strategy or to have regard to it. We discussed that previously in the context of whether one local flood risk management strategy would have to be consistent with the national flood risk management strategy, as that would be an entirely manageable responsibility.

The demand for consistency in Clause 11 could be much more onerous, as it applies to all risk management authorities. We are now including district councils and internal drainage boards, which do not have huge resources, and they are being asked to be consistent with all flood risk management strategies and guidance. I should be interested to hear the Minister respond on the legal implications of that and the liabilities that it might put on such bodies. Guidance is normally voluntary, but we seem to be placing a legal duty on bodies, such as internal drainage boards, to be absolutely consistent with guidance, or to risk sanctions that presumably could be quite serious. That barely seems to be guidance any more, but something much more demanding.

I begin to wonder whether that is one of the examples of poor drafting that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee might have pointed to, as we do not seem to have quite got a grasp of the interlocking web, which the Bill will create, of responsibilities and consistencies and of people having to have regard to each other’s strategies. I am not sure whether that has really been sorted out, so I would be grateful to the Minister for his comments.

In place of the requirement that risk management authorities, except water companies, act consistently with the national and local strategies, amendments 118 and 119 would introduce a weaker requirement that they should “have regard to” those strategies. Under Amendment 120, water companies also would not need to act consistently with the national strategy, but only to have regard to it. We have touched in previous debates upon the need to act consistently and not simply to have regard to a strategy. Under the amendment, those authorities could depart from the  strategies when they give a reason for doing so, and I do not think that any hon. Member wants that to happen.

The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that all risk management authorities act consistently with the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, because, in the light of our previous discussions, the national strategy has a key role to play in setting out the important approaches to flood management—for example, in taking a risk-based approach, considering resilience-type measures and obtaining the wider environmental benefits to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham has referred.

The national strategy will also seek to ensure that different authorities do not work in Opposition to each other. That is of real importance because, as we have said, water does not respect political or administrative boundaries; it can have detrimental effects from one area to another. In any event, it is intended that the national strategy should set out broad approaches and not be prescriptive about the detail of schemes, and we have given the outline to the Committee. However, in acting consistently with local strategies, that duty would apply to district councils, internal drainage boards and highways authorities, not to water companies.

Clause 11(1) and (3) state that water companies must have regard to the local strategy, but not necessarily to act consistently with it. That is intended to avoid placing excessive burdens on water companies and their charge payers and interfering with the regulatory regime that operates alongside it. None the less, water companies must act consistently with the national strategy, because they have to

“have regard to the local strategies”, and they must be able to explain why they would deviate from it.

It seems a little extraordinary to try to remove the burden from charge payers and, more obviously, from the shareholders of local water companies—given the enormous profits that the water companies make, presumably they will have the legal resources to defend themselves if they were challenged—but not from something as small as an internal drainage board or district council.

Indeed, but there are parallel obligations for the water companies both in terms of the regulatory regime and the people who pay their Bills through the water mechanism. As I have explained, they have to act consistently with the national strategy, because they must have regard to the local strategy. They would have to explain why they chose to deviate from it on any occasion, and they will be held accountable by the scrutiny committees locally, as well as by being judicially reviewable.

As for the measure being too prescriptive for internal drainage boards and, perhaps, smaller councils, it is intended that the lead local authorities work closely with other authorities in drawing up their strategies. In that way, those that need to act consistently with it should be able to comply. The Environment Agency’s guidance is intended to disseminate best practice for working together locally and should help to facilitate working in partnership, rather than duplicating work.

If a risk management authority cannot comply with the measure, it can raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State, who has the power to give guidance to the lead local flood authority, which can review the financial position. So authorities have that recourse if they need it. We do not anticipate such a situation arising, but if they need that recourse they have it.

We intend all the bodies to work closely with the lead local authority in putting together the strategy, so there should be little possibility of the lead authority dictating to some other authority. Given the duty to act consistently, everybody will have a strong and consistent incentive to get involved in the process.

All risk management partners will be full partners in the creation of both the local strategies and the local guidance that relates to them. Therefore, there is no reason why they will not want to implement the guidance and strategies that have been part and parcel of their work. The essence is that we do the job properly on the ground. I am talking about real local engagement and collaboration. When we put our offer out there and say to all the management partners that they have the ability to create a local strategy, our expectation is that they should get on with doing that job and deliver local solutions.

The spirit of co-operation is alive and well, and we obviously support the amendments. I found the Minister’s explanation most helpful, because clauses 11 and 12 are not quite as clear as he has expressed them.

I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s explanation, which still seems to be slightly tortuous. I have not detected an answer to the question about why a legal duty will be placed on organisations such as district councils always to be consistent with something that is called guidance. Guidance is normally something that need not be applied consistently.

I intervene only to reiterate that if this was top-down guidance from a Minister in Whitehall, I would have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but this is local guidance and local strategies that local bodies will construct themselves. On that basis, they will be devising it in accordance with the national strategy parameters and in a way in which they can deliver, and that is very good for local democracy.

Yes, if only everything that we were consulted on produced the outcome that we wanted, I am sure that we would all be happier. I am realistic about the prospects of the Amendment being accepted, so I will not press it to a vote. Although I am not entirely satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 50, in clause 11, page 8, line 27, leave out from ‘exercising’ to ‘must’ and insert

‘a flood or coastal erosion risk management function in relation to an area in England, a water company’.

Amendment 51, in clause 11, page 8, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).—(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

I beg to move Amendment 11, in Clause 11, page 8, line 31, at end insert—

‘(c) be consulted on all major new developments and their waste water capacity’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 112, in schedule 3, page 49, line 3, leave out ‘county council’ and insert

‘local planning authority (as defined in section 1 (1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990)’.

New Clause 14—No automatic connection to waste water pipes for major new developments—

‘(1) There shall be no connection to waste water pipes or drains granted until—

(a) water companies have been consulted on the capacity of the existing system to manage the extra demands from new properties;

(b) water companies have conducted a detailed assessment of the likely extra demand and the capacity of the existing system to handle it;

(c) financial responsiblity for building the extra infrastructure has been apportioned, and

(d) formal planning permission has been given.’.

New clause 15—Water companies to be statutory consultees—

‘(1) The relevant planning authority for all major new developments must consult equally—

(a) water companies and

(b) the Environment Agency.

(2) The consultations must—

(a) be in accordance with PPS 25;

(b) establish the impact of the proposed new development on the local drainage system, and

(c) inform the planning application process.’.

New clause 22—Planning permission and connection to the sewerage system—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 70B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—

“70C Prior to granting planning permission under section 70(1), a local planning authority must consult the relevant sewerage undertaker in relation to the proposed location of any connection to the sewerage system.”.

(3) “sewerage system” shall have the same meaning as in section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991.’.

These are probably the most important amendments that have been moved so far. I will consider each of them in turn, although taking all the amendments together, the idea is that we achieve what the Government say that they wish to achieve: the end of the automatic right to connect, which was one of the primary objectives of the Pitt report.

Amendment 11 would insert a new paragraph (c) to Clause 11(3) to insist that a water company is

“consulted on all major new developments and their waste water capacity”.

Just to be clear, I am talking not about a minor development of one or two houses filling in, but about major new developments, such as the 300 houses that I mentioned along the Muston road in a saturated, waterlogged field. The Minister will probably say that water companies are consulted at the moment, but I would like them to  be consulted on planning applications on the same basis as the Environment Agency, under planning policy statement 25.

The idea is that a water company would not just be consulted on a major new development of anything over 20, 30, 50 or more houses, as under the Government’s housing objectives, but be able to say that the capacity of waste water coming from those houses would not connect to the existing infrastructure, if that was so, and that conditions could be attached in that regard.

The amendment relates to earlier instances that the Committee has considered, including on the Isle of Wight and in Gloucestershire especially. From my knowledge of North Yorkshire, the Environment Agency often sets conditions at a certain level, but the housing development goes ahead and other existing houses from previous recent developments are flooded through no fault of their owners. I hope that the Minister will agree to establish the precedent that the developers be required to pay for the costs of improving the infrastructure and for making good the connection, rather than the existing development.

The amendment shows quite radical thinking and is intended to be helpful, because the Government have stated—the Minister said it as recently as last week in the evidence session—that they seek to end the automatic right to connect. I hope that amendment 112 is in a similar vein, but I will let the hon. Member for Cheltenham explain.

New clauses 14, 15 and 22 add meat to what we intend. New clause 14 would end the automatic connection as a statutory right. There would be no automatic connection for waste water pipes for major new developments without the agreement of the water or sewerage company. It states that water companies must be consulted to ensure that the existing infrastructure system can manage the new demands and that water companies must have conducted a detailed assessment and looked at scenarios to see what the extra demand and increased capacity will be. Subsection (1)(c) of new clause 14, which is extremely important, states:

“financial responsibility for building the extra infrastructure has been apportioned”.

That speaks to the point that the developer and the new houses would have to respond to the call for extra financing.

Formal planning permission would be given only on the basis that the criteria the water companies had requested were met. That means that we would not see the scale of spill-off into existing developments from new developments that there has been. That would meet the Minister’s stated aim of ending automatic connection.

New clause 15 would make water companies statutory consultees on the same basis as the Environment Agency. In the first year that the Environment Agency obtained the new powers, there were 16 instances of planning authorities proceeding to give planning permission, despite what it had said. I think we can all point to examples where planning permission should not have been given because the developments have flooded or have caused flooding on adjoining properties. New clause 15 would give water companies the same statutory authority, as consultees, as the Environment Agency. They would be  able to set conditions and inform the planning process. New clause 22 would make consequential changes to previous legislation relating to planning permission and connection to the sewerage system.

I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree to the changes, because all constituents in England and Wales would benefit from them. In case I do not have the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Cheltenham speaks to amendment 112, I state now that we support it because we do not believe that county level is necessarily the right level for the approval of SUDS. We would like to see flexibility, as I said earlier, and that amendment would deliver it, subject to the Minister’s comments.

I want to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend’s proposals. Given the intention behind them, I am surprised that they are not already in the Bill. This issue has been discussed by Pitt and others. My impression was that there was a consensus that we end the automatic right to connect.

People living in areas that have flooded may have seen the drainage system doing the reverse of what it is supposed to do—throwing water on to the streets and creating rivers running down them. That is a spectacular but very frightening sight, and it is damaging to any houses that happen to be in the way of what becomes a river. I have a particular image in my mind of where that took place. Again, that was following a new development being built in an area where it should not have been built. We come back to the same problem.

We have not got to the point where the regional spatial strategy for the south-west has been accepted, and I hope it will not be accepted for the reasons I have given in Committee and in the House many times. Even if we go down that route, we are going to build an awful lot of houses—thousand and thousands—on very small areas of land. As I have said before, there would be more than 14,000 in my Constituency alone, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent. on the current housing stock. That is a huge number of houses. Frankly, if we go down that route without the safeguard of the amendments and new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend, that would be very frightening indeed.

I noticed that the Minister was nodding during much of the speech made by my hon. Friend. I hope he will be sympathetic to the new clauses and amendments, for the reason given not only by my hon. Friend and me, but by everyone involved in this debate over the past two and a half years.

I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, Conservative Front Benchers, Ofwat or Sir Michael Pitt on everything, but I do agree with them on this. If I were being picky, I might point out that there are some slight drafting difficulties with some of the amendments, but their thrust is important and they address a crucial issue.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this was a key recommendation of the Pitt report. Recommendation 10 is absolutely unambiguous:

“the automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed.”

It also came as a bit of a shock to me to discover that the matter is not as clear in the detail of the Bill. When South West Water wrote to me, it stated:

“Highway drainage systems are the most common route by which excess inappropriate flows gain entry into sewers and  overload them. We do not accept that highway drainage should be permitted to connect to foul or combined sewers and that connections to surface water sewers should be by Agreement only... In order for them to perform the essential role of protecting public health, sewers must be regarded as critical infrastructure that should be protected from the effects of flooding as far as possible. Due to their location underground they are the first critical infrastructure to become affected and overwhelmed during heavy rainfall.”

It concluded:

“The Flood and Water Management Bill increases the risk of flooding from sewers resulting in failure of service, sewer flooding, pollution and increased costs”.

That is a worrying conclusion. Of course, in new developments it is not just the individual drainage of houses but road drainage that is being added to. That is part of the whole equation. I am sympathetic to Amendment 11.

New Clause 14 is extremely important and the assumption behind it is that in practice, if the water companies’ consent is not given, new developments cannot proceed. I hope that would be the result of the provision if it goes through.

My only fear relates to the notion of adopted and unadopted roads. We all have examples in our constituencies of developers coming forward with proposals that in due course would lead to the full adoption of roads, and we all know that that does not always happen. I know the situation is a bit more drastic where water is concerned, but will the hon. Gentleman assure me that if we pass the amendments, we will end up with clarity and not with adopted and unadopted sewers, and so on? Otherwise, this could be a nightmare.

Exactly the same thought had occurred to me. New Clause 14 is drafted particularly with respect to new properties and raises the theoretical probability that people could be left in limbo again, with unadopted sewers. However, I think the implication of the new clause—this is why I said what I said before the hon. Gentleman intervened—is that in practice a new development could not go ahead if the water company’s consent had not been obtained.

The new clause also states that no connection will be granted until

“formal planning permission has been given.”

It would be a rather brave local authority that gave planning permission for something when consent from the water company had not been obtained and there was no automatic right to connect. In effect, the local authority would almost intentionally create an anomaly in committing the new developer to that situation. Therefore, the new clause is not completely tidy. However, the important thing is that the issue in the amendments and new clauses is being raised here. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously enough to look again at whether we are implementing Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendation on that crucial point.

I have a slight difficulty with new clause 15, partly because of the word “equally”: it states that the planning authority, for all new developments, must

“consult equally—

(a) water companies and

(b) the Environment Agency.”

I am pretty content for the Environment Agency, which is a Government body with explicit responsibilities for the natural environment and sustainable development, to have an important consultative role. However, water companies are principally private companies with shareholder interests and private interests. They are businesses and they might, somewhat mischievously, object to something simply because it might increase their costs. We do not want to allow that. However, the important point is that, through all the new clauses, we establish that there is no automatic right to connection. Developers have to recognise that.

Amendment 112 addresses a slightly different issue. We think there may be a mistake in the Bill. It appears logical, and it certainly is logical in a unitary authority area, for the approving body to be the lead local authority, but in a two-tier area, the lead local authority, being the county council, is not the planning authority—that is the district council. The provision could create the strange situation where there is an extra layer of bureaucracy. The Local Government Association put it like this:

“This situation also means that developers who normally apply to district councils for planning permission could be forced to seek a separate approval for developments from county councils. This would create a further complication for the recovering property market as well as additional wasteful bureaucracy.

The SUDS approval system should work in the same way as issues relating to highways. In these situations in two-tier areas the district planning authority consults with the county to ensure that highways issues are properly addressed. The same system should be used for the approval of SUDS. Local knowledge and a detailed understanding of the planning process are vital if this system is to be successful in practice.”

Therefore, we are potentially complicating the whole process unnecessarily. There is a planning authority. It should have that responsibility and we should not in effect place that extra, rather complicated burden on the lead local authority, whose expertise is not really in planning. That is the purpose of amendment 112.

I appreciate the opportunity that the debate affords us to get into the detail of the issue and to clarify some matters. The issue that underpins that—it has been raised by the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Cheltenham—is the right to automatic connection. The question was, has that gone, and why is that not stated explicitly? It has gone. Let me explain why.

The automatic right to connection is being removed. That will be conditional on the SUDS approving body, an advisory body, approving the drainage. That is in line with the recommendation of Pitt, who wanted a process whereby developers have to consider alternatives to connection. Approval for national standards, which I will come to in a moment to help explain the matter, will do that.

In effect, we are talking about a hierarchy in respect of SUDS. The last option—developers would have to show that every other option had been exhausted—would be connection. So the automatic right to connection has gone. Let me explain the national standards, because they are critical to this. Those standards are being developed by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association. The first draft will be out in spring this year.

The legislative framework for delivering SUDS is set out in the Bill, and the standards will be open to public consultation. People will have the opportunity to input their thoughts on what we propose, on the costs, and on whether the process is good or could be improved, before we finally sign it off. A project advisory board, encompassing key stakeholders, has been meeting for some time to offer guidance on the development of the standards.

We are developing the standards with the industry, and we will put them out for consultation. I shall give an overview without revealing the result. Essentially, a hierarchy will compel developers to start with SUDS development of the various types, from swales to more complex underground tanks and so on. That is the hierarchy of consideration. We shall then put in criteria that the industry will have to meet. It will have to reason its way through many hurdles before it can say, “Well, all of those have been exhausted. We simply cannot do it because of the geography, the topography, the environment. We cannot do anything else. Will you allow us to make a connection?”

I do not want to go into technical detail, but the matter will be put out for public consultation. It will show clearly, in line with the Bill, that the right to automatic connection will have gone. We have flipped the situation completely on its head, saying, “You start with SUDS development, and you have to work your way through that before being considered.” Ultimately, the SUDS approving body—the SAB—will have to decide whether to give the go ahead.

We are talking about different things. The hon. Member for Stroud expressed the frustration that we all feel—that no one quite understands what a SUDS is. I came up with a definition; when we get there, I hope the Minister will be minded to approve it. However, I am not talking about the SUDS. I have spoken to all the water companies and their umbrella organisations, and they are convinced that if the Minister persists with the Bill in its present form, there will be no end to the automatic right to connect.

I am not talking about the SUDS—the pond that takes the excess water, which may or may not invert into a sewerage pipe. I shall be very crude, Mr. Martlew, but as polite as I can be. I am talking about the stuff that comes out of the toilet and goes into the waste water pipe. It immediately connects into the main sewerage pipe, which is the responsibility of the water company and the sewerage undertaker—it may not be the same company. A SUDS is completely different. My understanding of a SUDS is that, broadly, it takes two forms. One is the water spill-over off the road or highway. The other—

Order. This is an Intervention.

It is. The other is what the Minister is talking about. In my view, it should never have a connection into the sewerage pipe because it is not sewage. The SUDS is the overflow for saturation and water-logging. The Minister must address that point.

Let me address that point directly. I understand now what the hon. Lady is pushing at. There is some confusion about what the Bill is trying to achieve.

Martin Horwoodrose—

Order. It would be helpful if the Minister replied to the Intervention before taking another.

But Amendment 112 is on a slightly different topic. It relates to SUDS.

I shall deal directly with the point. There are no proposals to amend the existing right to connect what I politely call foul drainage from new developments to the public sewerage system. It is not in line with Pitt, and we believe that it is not in the public health interest to do so.

If there are capacity problems with foul drainage, it is reasonable to expect the sewerage undertaker to make provision for improvements to deal with it. Where the timing of such improvements is not found to coincide with a development proposal, it must be for the planning authority to take a view on whether the problem is such that development should be deferred. I hope the Committee is clear about that. I do not know whether anyone disagrees, but what we are dealing with is separate from foul water management and public health issues.

With your permission, Mr. Martlew, I shall continue. I wish to make progress on the amendments.

Will the Minister give way?

May I make some progress first, as I expect the hon. Gentleman will be asking about matters I am trying to clarify?

New Clause 15 seeks to ensure that the relevant planning authority for all major new developments consults water companies and the Environment Agency. It further requires that the consultations are in accordance with planning policy statement 25, that they establish the impact of the proposed new development on the local drainage system, and that they inform the planning process.

I hope that hon. Members will be pleased to know that in England, the Environment Agency is already a statutory consultee for planning applications and is consulted on applications for major developments as well as for most developments in flood risk areas. Those arrangements are set out in a table in article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

Making all water companies statutory consultees for all planning applications would impose a significant burden on water companies. For smaller scale developments, the cost of assessment of applications might well exceed their value in informing a planning decision. It would also duplicate the arrangements for the SUDS approval process, outlined in paragraph 11(3) of schedule 3, which lists water and sewerage companies, as well as the Environment Agency, among the statutory consultees to the SUDS approval body or SAB. Water companies will be consulted if the SAB is considering a surface water drainage application and if a connection to the surface water sewer is proposed.

New clause 15 would also be inconsistent with the laudable set of policy proposals, on which the Government are consulting, aimed at improving the planning  consultation process. Our aim is to reduce unnecessary consultation and to speed up the determination of planning applications, which is a major consideration for many people in their areas as we look for affordable housing and so on. Making all water companies statutory consultees would not support that objective.

I have two quick questions. First, would the Minister be more sympathetic to an Amendment or new Clause that had a de minimis provision, with water companies being statutory consultees for just the larger planning applications considered by local authorities? Secondly, to clarify, who judges whether the national standards for SUDs have been met in any development?

May I return later to the second point? The idea of a de minimis provision goes away from the principle that we are trying to establish, which is getting the balance right between the loads on the system, and the easing or streamlining of the planning application system. I shall come to how that works in a moment, because what we are also configuring in the Bill is the ability to streamline the point at which a potential developer—whether private or a social housing developer—receives an answer on the planning application and on sustainable drainage; they can have that answer at the same time from one person, without having to go to two different areas. I shall come to that, but it will help to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

New Clause 22, which may or may not be probing, seeks water and sewerage consultation on the proposed location of connection to the sewer. We would not normally comment on the drafting of such an Amendment, but it is worth noting that new clause 22 as drafted would mean connections to the foul sewer as well as to the surface water sewer. I am not sure whether that is deliberate but, as the Bill deals with issues such as surface water, let me focus only on that element of the new clause.

Under the SUDS introduced by the Bill, the consultation proposed by new clause 22 is unnecessary. Following the removal of the automatic right to connect to the surface water sewer, the drainage of new development will be assessed in the light of the SUDS national standard, which would only allow a connection to the sewer as a last, or almost last, resort. As stated previously, the SAB will be required to consult the relevant sewerage undertaker before making its determination. As the Committee will be aware, paragraph 7 of schedule 3 provides that no construction can begin until SUDS approval has been obtained. The new clause, as configured, would add to the burdens for local authorities and for sewerage undertakers because it would duplicate the arrangements that will be put in place for SUDS approvals. I suspect that one of the things that has emerged from the debate is the need to provide further clarity, so it might be an idea to write to members of the Committee to provide further clarity on how we see the SUDS developing, how that hierarchy will work and how the right to automatic connection will figure within that and become, in a way, a last resort.

Is not the point of difference in that regard, as I understand it, that where improvements  are necessary to the sewerage system because of large new developments, under the Amendment, the cost would fall on the developer, rather than the public body?

That is one of the proposals that have been put forward in our discussions, but it is not something on which we need to decide now. Because of the consultation that we will have, we will bring forward proposals, on both the hierarchy and alternative ways of funding, and I strongly suspect that the proposal that has been put forward will be one of the options. That is the appropriate way to do it, because I suspect that local authorities, developers and others will want to put forward their own ideas about the best way of funding SUDS development. Is it to do with individual householders, local authorities or developers themselves? Is it a proportionate approach between them? Does it depend on the size of the development? We do not have to decide on that for the Bill, but we will do so through proper consultation.

I did not explain one aspect. The regulation-making powers already in the Bill allow us to set a de minimis for who applies to the SUDS approving body, so we could do it through that approach. If we are going to do that, let us start with large developments. Again, however, we can consult on that and take further ideas.

New Clause 14 seeks to introduce a restriction on the connection of any new waste drainage to the public sewerage system by making it subject to a number of new conditions. Those conditions are that planning permission is granted only after consultation has been carried out with water and sewerage companies on the capacity of their systems to manage the extra demand; that the companies have carried out a detailed assessment of the extra demand likely to be created; and that the responsibility of meeting the cost of creating any necessary additional infrastructure is apportioned.

I make it absolutely clear that it is for water and sewerage companies to finance their investment programmes, which already make provision for improving the capacity of their infrastructure where they have investment planned in response to proposals contained in development plans. To the extent that a local planning authority considers it necessary for investment in additional capacity to be brought forward to enable a development to proceed, it is already open to it to seek a planning obligation to provide for a contribution to the financing of that investment. Where it is not satisfied that the necessary infrastructure can be put in place, it may refuse planning permission.

As the Bill is about managing surface water, the ability to connect foul drainage to the public sewerage system will remain. However, subject to the requirement under clause 41, all new sewers and lateral drains connecting to the public sewerage systems will have to be built to a standard to be published by the Secretary of State and adopted as part of the public system. That answers the query that was rightly raised earlier. We have been through that before in relation to a different issue and do not want to repeat that mistake. That will be done by entering into a formal adoption agreement with water and sewerage companies under section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, water companies will of course be statutory consultees to the SUDS approval process where a connection to the surface water sewer is proposed.

The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire have tabled Amendment 112, which would amend paragraph 6(1)(b) of schedule 3 so that if there is no unitary authority for an area, the role of the SAB would not be given to the relevant county council, but to the local planning authority. Paragraph 6(1) of schedule 3 establishes a SUDS approving body and gives those functions to county or unitary local authorities. The SAB would be responsible for approving all surface water drainage systems for new construction work, in accordance with the new national standards, and adopting and maintaining SUDS that serve more than one property, where they have been constructed as approved. Placing SUDS approval and adoption responsibilities at the county local authorities level fits well alongside their existing responsibilities for highways maintenance. We expect many SUDS to be located in or alongside roads, especially within dense urban environments.

More importantly, county councils will have wider responsibilities under the lead local flood authority role in part 1. They will also have responsibilities for surface water management planning. Placing the SAB at the county rather than the district level, where many planning authorities are located, will mean that the SAB has the wider surface water and flooding overview, on a larger scale, to help it to determine drainage applications.

We have also worked to align the planning and the SAB approval processes. When planning permission is needed, the developer can apply directly to the planning authority for both planning permission and SUDS drainage approval, which would streamline the process for developers—a point that I raised earlier. The SAB will be statutory consultee to the planning authority and will return its decision to the planning authority, which will notify the developer.

It should be noted, in line with the comments that have been made, that there is nothing to prevent unitary or county local authorities, in their role as SUDS approving bodies, from transferring by agreement their approval functions to a local planning authority. Let us be clear about that. However, the SUDS approving body would retain responsibility and liability for SUDS. The buck stops with the approving body, but it could delegate the function.

Amendment 11 would ensure that water companies are consulted on all major new developments and their waste water capacity. The clause is about the duties of risk management authorities in relation to flood risk management strategies, so the amendment would not have a meaningful effect in the context of the clause. In any event, what it seeks to achieve is not necessary because, as I stated previously, SAB approval is required when construction has surface water draining implications, and water companies are statutory consultees to that approval process when a connection to the sewer is proposed. On that basis, and with that extensive clarification, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

I regret that we shall not be minded to withdraw our Amendment. I do not want to spend a great deal of time talking about SUDS, other than to respond to the Minister’s remarks, but he will be aware that we are not seeking to make the planning authority or the local authority responsible for SUDS after the  planning stage. The matter is controversial. I am not sure that everyone agrees with it, but it makes sense that, if we want to achieve such a result under the Bill, ownership would be better placed with the water companies.

I want to park SUDS until we come to the relevant amendments. The Minister is such a nice man that I find it disagreeable to disagree with him.

My wife says the same.

I wish my husband would say the same about me.

Recommendation 10 of the Pitt review could not be clearer. It goes to the heart of the matter. It is a question of semantics. I am talking about waste water sewage, foul water sewage—the stuff that comes through the toilet—while the hon. Gentleman is talking about surface water sewage. I am not disagreeing with him. There is an element of agreement, but the recommendation states:

“The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed.”

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we are going further than that, I can point to several flood issues and incidents in 2007, 2005 and 2000 when the properties of recent developments were flooded with sewage—foul water—from existing developments. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Selby. He expressed it well. We are talking about major new developments.

Just for clarity, having been flooded three times in my flat with foul sewage, I know the unpleasantness of it. The hon. Lady accurately quoted Pitt, who said:

“The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed.”

That is what we have done. Recommendation 10 relates not to foul water but to surface water drainage. That is why we are trying to do what Pitt wants; let us not go further.

The hon. Gentleman will have had the same conversations with the water and sewerage companies that we have had, and they are convinced that recommendation 10 covers foul water sewage. [Interruption.] If I may, I will complete my point before giving way. The incidents to which I refer concern foul water coming out of new developments that could not connect to the existing infrastructure at a time of flooding. That is why there were incidents of flooding in Cumbria, as the hon. Member for Copeland will know.

I have listened to the debate about exactly what Pitt did or did not say, or what he did or did not mean to say. Although the report is extremely important, it is not necessarily the be all and end all. If my hon. Friend wishes to propose an Amendment or new Clause saying that foul water should be disposed of in such a way, she is perfectly entitled to do so, regardless of what Pitt said or meant to say.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The hon. Member for Copeland will probably confirm that that was the case in the Cumbrian floods. We are talking about major new developments—I did  refer to 20, 30, 50 or more houses in a development, so I do not think the scenario the Minister painted would be accurate. The reason why I pressed the Committee on this point is that we are trying to prevent floods from whatever source they come. The most recent floods—Cumbria in 2007, 2005, 2001 and 2000—clearly demonstrate that we are talking about a major source of flooding. There are public health issues and as the Minister knows from his own experience, with which I sympathise in a heartfelt manner, people are not allowed to return to their homes—they can only do that if it is river water or surface water—because of the public health implications.

It is outrageous that the Government are suggesting that water and sewerage companies should fund the improvements needed to connect the waste water coming from the new houses, which most people do not want next door to them, into the existing infrastructure. Frankly, why should I or my constituents pay, as existing customers of a water company who go through a five-year review to envisage what their requirements will be, when in the middle of that review there may be planning permission for 20, 50 or 200 houses of which they had no previous knowledge, and which the Minister is now saying they should account for? That is plain wrong. If we are saying that improvements to the infrastructure are only required in this case because of a new development, that should be reflected in who pays. If we ask the developer to pay, the cost will be transferred to the new occupants of those houses.

Will the hon. Lady let us know what discussions she has had with other stakeholders, including house builders and so on, about her proposal? I have some sympathy with aspects of it, but we do not need to fix this in the Bill. We need properly to take advice and to consult, and then reach a conclusion, rather than acting in a way that simply says, “Regardless, it is all going to fall on this.” She may well be right—I am not saying she is not—but we need to act in a timely way, and we do not need to do it here.

With the greatest respect, what are we here for? We are here to improve the Bill. The Minister has had the required consultations. It is as a result of those consultations and direct face-to-face meetings that the Minister is asking water and sewerage companies to pay. If there was scope for wider consultation on the Amendment before Report stage, I would be happy to concede that. I do not disagree with him about SUDS, but I believe it wrong in principle that the existing water and sewerage companies should pay for new housing that is largely part of Government policy, but not Opposition policy.

I have mentioned my last area of disagreement with regard to SUDS before, but the Minister has spelled it out so I would like to explain why I disagree with him. I do not believe that county councils are the appropriate authorities for SUDS, other than for those relating to highways. I disagree with their being the approving bodies for SUDS relating to major developments, to which he referred. We should write into the Bill that district councils, which are the relevant planning authorities, should be the approving bodies. We could then consider the amendments in which we take that a stage further when the time is right. I do not want to test the Committee’s patience too greatly, and I am happy to  return to amendment 11 and new clauses 15 and 22 at a later stage, but I would like to press new Clause 14 to a vote.

The new clauses will be taken at the end. The only proposal that can be voted on now is the one on the Amendment paper.

Well, with the Committee’s indulgence, I would like to press Amendment 11 to a vote.

On a point of order, Mr. Martlew. I thought that new Clause 14 was being pressed to a vote. What is being voted on?

New Clause 14 cannot be pressed at this time.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 52, in clause 11, page 8, line 33, leave out ‘a risk management authority for an area in England’ and insert ‘an English risk management authority’.—(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

I beg to move Amendment 53, in Clause 11, page 8, line 34, at end insert—

‘(4A) A cross-border internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is mainly in Wales must—

(a) act in a manner which is consistent with the local strategies and guidance, and

(b) have regard to the national strategy and guidance.

(4B) Subsection (4A) does not affect the duties of a cross-border internal drainage board under section 12.’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment 58.

These technical amendments will provide clarity on the duties of cross-border internal drainage boards in relation to the national strategies for England and Wales. We want to introduce a new subsection to Clause 11, to state that cross-border IDBs for an area that is mainly in Wales will have to act consistently with the local strategies and guidance for the areas in which they lie in England and Wales, but will only be subject to the lesser obligation to have regard to the English national strategy and guidance.

Under the proposed Amendment for clause 12, IDBs will also need to act consistently with the Welsh national strategy and guidance. A new subsection will be introduced to clause 12, to state that an IDB for an area that is mainly in England will have to act consistently with local strategies for areas in which they operate in England and Wales, but will only be subject to the lesser obligation to have regard to the Welsh national strategy and guidance.

Pursuant to clause 11, IDBs will have to act consistently with the national strategy and guidance for England. The amendment will not affect an IDB mainly in Wales, which will be regulated under clause 11(4)(a), as well as clause 12(1).

My understanding is that these amendments address some of the issues identified by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so we will not stand in their way.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

I wish to raise one or two points that it was not possible to raise in previous discussions on specific amendments. Clause 11 refers to partnerships. In allowing, accommodating and even encouraging collaboration, does partnership have a special, technical meaning in encouraging local authorities to co-operate, particularly in river catchment areas, as we discussed previously? Different issues apply: the Minister’s amendments refer to country borders; catchment managements refer to cross-council borders. I want to highlight the financing of the obligations arising from clause 11, because an ongoing concern is whether they will be properly resourced.

On subsection 3(a) and (b), is there scope for having regard to strategies and guidance? Will all the parties to which the Bill refers be formally consulted and will they have any input into the drafting of the local strategies and guidance?

Subsection (5) says:

“The Secretary of State may by order require a specified person to have regard to the national and local strategies”.

On a point of clarification, how would he identify who that specifying person would be? I want to strike a note that we are concerned that the decision making is not quite as democratic as we would wish. As has been noted previously, we want to be sure that the local plans are consistent with the national plan, but by the same token—while admiring the role of the Environment Agency—we want to be sure that the agency may not overrule in any way what the local strategy in a specific area is planning to do. We would like to think that, as far as possible, local strategies will be as autonomous as possible for that area. Could the Minister clarify again how he thinks that the local plan will be consistent with the national plan, and will he ensure that the Environment Agency is not too overbearing in that regard?

I am pleased to respond to those points. The Clause will give effect to the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy prepared by the Environment Agency and the local flood risk management strategies prepared by the lead local flood authorities in England. Under the clause,  the risk management authorities in England will be required to exercise the flooding and coastal erosion risk management functions in a manner consistent with the national and local strategies, as we discussed.

The only exception to that is the water companies, which are already subject to a separate regulatory regime. We concluded that they should not be bound by detailed local strategies. They are therefore required to exercise their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions in a manner that is consistent with the national strategy and to have regard to the local strategies and guidance. The Bill does not identify any water company functions as flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, but, for clarification, it does allow for such functions to be added by order.

The hon. Lady asked who “a specified person” in subsection (5) might be. Examples might well be Natural England, British Waterways or others, as time goes by. In addition, the risk management authorities will be required to have regard to the national and local strategies and any guidance when exercising other statutory functions that may affect flood or coastal erosion risk, so helping to ensure consistent approaches by different authorities.

Who will be consulted on the national and local strategies? For the national strategy, I refer to clause 7(3), and for the local strategy, I refer to clause 9(6), on which we had some discussion. However, as was mentioned, to allow for changing circumstances over time, clause 11 allows the Secretary of State by order to

“require a specified person to have regard to the...strategies”.

The hon. Lady asked who should be consulted, and we have rightly had some discussion on that already. All the risk management authorities will be consulted, and there will be public consultation on the local strategies. All those who have to act consistently will be consulted, and there will be opportunity for people to give input, and by so doing, to shape the strategies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.