This snapshot, taken on 21/12/2003, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
A REPORT ON THE RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER ON THE PROVISION OF NEW DRAINS AND SEWERS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
MARCH 2002
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Consultation paper was issued by the then Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) and the Welsh Assembly on 6 March 2000. At the request of local authorities, the original closing date for submitting comments of 19th May 2000 was extended to 9 June 2000. Some 140 responses were received. These came from local authorities, government departments (including OFWAT) trade and professional bodies, sewerage undertakers, academia and individuals. A summary of the statistical analysis of these responses is at Annex 'A'. This report summarises those responses, and draws conclusions from the consultation exercise. It also outlines actions being taken to implement the conclusions.
2. OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES
2.1 Overall, the paper was welcomed. Most respondents recognised the issues raised and supported, in principle, the proposals put forward namely that:
(a) standards and controls for the construction of drains and sewers should be rationalised;
(b) the provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 relating to new public sewers should be clarified; and
(c) public awareness be improved with regard to the ownerships and responsibilities for maintenance of drains and sewers.
2.2 The proposals and suggestions put forward for achieving the above objectives received the support of the majority of consultees. Most respondents who expressed reservations offered conditional support. There were few outright dissents. Most of those who did not offer specific views on individual points, supported the general principles engendered in the paper. There were strong views that the scope of the exercise should have been extended to include surface water drainage. A significant number urged that consideration should also be given to resolving the problems relating to existing private sewers.
3. RATIONALISING STANDARDS AND CONTROLS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS
3.1 This part of the paper drew the most comment. There was overwhelming support for the proposal that there should be a single standard for constructing all sewers, and that that should be the 'adoptable standard'. A clear majority agreed with the principle that 'Sewers for Adoption' (which sets out the water industry's standard specifications for the construction of sewers) should continue to play a key role in delivering this standard. However, some respondents, particularly those representing developers and contractors, expressed disquiet as a result of their experience of the regional variations in standards being demanded by individual sewerage undertakers. They also expressed the opinion that some of the requirements of 'Sewers for Adoption' were excessive e.g. an insistence on locating sewers in public highways only, when the topography and layout of the development might lend itself to the laying of at least some sewers through private land, especially where easement was not an issue. Also the minimum distance from buildings and depths of sewers were seen by them as onerous and not conducive to modern high density developments. There was a suggestion that these requirements be moderated and redefined to make them acceptable to the main players, especially house builders. A small minority of respondents suggested that the standard should be set centrally by the Department.
3.2 The proposal that any sewer (defined as pipework draining more than one dwelling) should be built to the adoptable standard was also endorsed by a majority. However, some respondents favoured a minimum threshold of between 3 and 10 dwellings as being more appropriate. The reason put forward for this view was that two dwellings only would not produce sufficient flow to effectively carry solids in sewage through a 150mm diameter pipe, the minimum size specified in the 'Sewers for Adoption'. It was thought that this would be especially so with the moves in the UK towards water conservation and the introduction of low water usage appliances and fittings, such as low flow flush toilets. Experiences in Australia and United States were cited to support this view. On the other hand, there were respondents, including sewerage undertakers, local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, that advocated maintaining 150mm diameter as the minimum. This view was supported by their experiences that a larger pipe was less prone to blockages by certain solids commonly found in the sewers. In addition to the points made above by the respondents, a larger pipe would also have the capacity to accommodate an element of surface water infiltration that inevitably enters most sewers. Spare capacity could also help to cope with infill and further developments that quite often end up discharging to the nearest sewers. The expected reduction in water consumption by the use of water saving devices and appliances could be off-set by more people using additional appliances such as dishwashers, garbage grinders and power showers.
3.3 The vast majority of those who responded were of the opinion that the existing consultation arrangements did not allow proper consideration of sewerage undertakers' views in respect of development plans and planning applications. It was felt that severance by the sewerage undertakers of sewerage agency arrangements with local authorities, and the practice by some sewerage undertakers, if consulted, not to respond to small-scale development proposals, had led to further deterioration in the consultation process. Several respondents took the view that designating sewerage undertakers as a statutory consultee was the only solution to this. However, a few respondents expressed concern that the commercial interests of sewerage undertakers might sometimes lead them to take a biased attitude. A majority also supported the view that Planning Policy Guidance (PPG23) should be strengthened by including the advice that all sewers should be built to an adoptable standard.
3.4 There was very strong support for the proposal that Part H of the Building Regulations should be amended to align with the adoptable standard for the construction of all sewers. Another issue that was highlighted by some respondents was the inspection of works. A few respondents claimed that there was little or no co-ordination between the Building Regulation inspectors and sewerage undertakers inspections. It was alleged that Building Inspectors did not consider the inspection of drains and sewers built outside the curtilage of individual dwelling as being part of their responsibility, even if the sewers were privately owned. Any problems of the inspection regime could be alleviated if all new sewers were to be built to an adoptable standard.
4. CLARIFYING THE PROVISIONS IN THE WATER INDUSTRY ACT FOR NEW SEWERS.
4.1 Comments received suggested that there appeared to be no clear and generally acceptable definition of the extent to which a sewerage undertaker has a duty under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to provide and extend public sewers as to ensure that the area is, and continues to be, effectively drained. Most local authorities and developers, in their experience of seeking new sewers, had formed the opinion that the sewerage undertakers refused to build first time sewerage unless it was requisitioned. They would welcome sewerage undertakers playing an active part in extending their systems outside the requisitioning process.
4.2 The concept of a sewerage undertaker providing strategic sewers was supported by most respondents. However, there was a call from some for an unambiguous definition of strategic sewers.
4.3 The idea of providing further guidance on various provisions, under the Water Industry Act 1991 was also generally supported. Some respondents suggested that a guidance note alone might not suffice and that legislation might be needed to clarify and enforce various provisions.
5. IMPROVING AWARENESS OF, OWNERSHIP OF, AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR, MAINTAINING DRAINS AND SEWERS
5.1 It was clear from respondents' comments that there was a general lack of awareness about the responsibility of ownership and maintenance of drains and sewers. Local authorities seemed to bear the brunt as the perception of householders was to contact their local council if there were a drainage problem. To a large extent, it was felt that the question of who had the responsibility for drainage systems was not made sufficiently clear to prospective purchasers of properties.
5.2 The use of Land Registry records and the proposed 'sellers pack' were seen as positive moves by a majority of respondents. The Land Registry have since indicated that information about the location and maintenance of drains could only be included in their records if it were shown on the transfer documents deposited by developers through their lawyers. Some concern was expressed about the need to ensure the accuracy of these records, particularly in the case of updating Land Registry records, if and when any physical alterations were made to drainage systems. A log book maintained by the owners to record the status of all utilities and services was also suggested as a way of recording and passing on information to successive owners.
5.3 The proposal to require sewerage undertakers to take over responsibility for new lateral drains situated outside the curtilage was supported by a clear majority. Some respondents suggested the possibility of householders having insurance or such similar schemes to cover the maintenance of laterals. An inspection chamber close to the curtilage as a demarcation between the householders' and sewerage undertakers' ownership was also strongly supported. The use of 'Sewers for Adoption' was seen by most as a logical means to define the standard for laterals and demarcation chambers.
6. COST IMPLICATIONS
6.1 A number of respondents did not answer the specific questions on cost implications. Instead, they suggested that overall the benefits exceeded the additional costs. The consensus was that the costs involved could be justified by the long term advantages to the public enjoying properly built drainage systems, with well defined responsibilities for ownership, maintenance, repair and if necessary, replacement of those sewers.
6.2 One respondent commissioned a firm of quantity surveyors who calculated the additional cost for house builders to implement the proposal contained in the paper that all sewers be built to an adoptable standard as being £248 per plot. A few respondents made the suggestion that 'whole life' costing should be carried out.
6.3 Householders were seen as benefiting the most but some respondents suggested that their financial benefit might be blunted by higher sewerage charges and suggested that the cost implications needed to be explored further. Concern was also raised about the risk of cross-subsidy between the existing and new customers.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND ACTIONS TO DATE
7.1 In respect of rationalising standards and controls for the construction of sewers, it could be concluded that the consultation confirmed support for the proposal that all sewers should be built to a standard that would not preclude them from being adopted by sewerage undertakers. This will be achieved by harmonising the technical specifications on design and construction of sewers contained in the Approved Document to Part H of the Building Regulations and 5th edition of Sewers for Adoption. A Protocol has been produced which draws together the essential elements of the design and construction of sewers so as to form an adoptable standard. This Protocol is endorsed by Water UK's Sewers for Adoption Committee and the House Builders Federation. This Protocol also promotes closer liaison between the parties and should help to remove any confusion or inadequacy concerning the inspections of works especially the roles and need for co-ordination between the building inspectors and sewerage undertakers.
7.2 Discussions are already taking place with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) for them to include in the revised Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 23 advice that sewers be built to the adoptable standard and that developers should consult sewerage undertakers. Steps are also being taken to improve consultation on drainage issues in respect of development plans and planning applications. The Government is seeking to restrict the number of statutory consultees in order not to extend the planning process. However, we are discussing with DETR advising local planning authorities to consult sewerage undertakers, on a non-statutory basis.
7.3 The consultation endorsed the need to clarify the provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 for new public sewers through centrally issued guidance. We are following this up with a view to ensuring that guidance is issued.
7.4 The proposals contained in the section of the paper concerning improving awareness of ownership of and responsibilities for maintaining drains and sewers were endorsed. The improvements in the process in dealing with the drainage issues in pre-contract and local land searches enquiries, which are expected to form part of the 'sellers pack', are being pursued. In view of the doubts about ensuring accuracy of the information first recorded and further difficulties of amending records if any physical changes are made, the use of Land Registry records is not to be pursued at this stage.
7.5 There was strong support for the proposal requiring sewerage undertakers to carry the responsibility for new lateral drains built outside the curtilage of properties with a chamber located close to the boundary as a demarcation of ownership. It will be necessary to introduce new primary legislation to implement this and the proposed Water Bill may provide a suitable opportunity. 'Sewers for Adoption' is seen as providing the technical guidance for the lateral and demarcation chamber. Since the lateral and the chamber forms an interface with house drains, the guidance on installing them has been made in the Protocol referred to in paragraph 7.1 above.
7.6 The consensus on cost implications was that in the long term, the benefits of the proposals contained in the consultation paper considerably outweigh costs especially to the householders and also to local authorities. The implications of the costs to sewerage undertakers are to be explored further.
7.7 Some respondents took the opportunity to comment on issues other than those upon which views were invited. The two main additional issues raised were that:
- the scope of the exercise should not be confined to exploring the proposal to build foul sewers to adoptable standard but should be extended to include the proposition of also building surface water sewers to adoptable standard;
- steps should be taken to resolve the problems associated with existing private sewers in a similar manner to the proposals for new sewers in this consultation.
In respect of (a) above, while recognising that a case can be made for building conventional piped surface water sewers to adoptable standards, it would require further study, including examination of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and highway drainage. This was not part of the consultation exercise but the Department is involved in looking at other drainage systems. On (b) above, the Department made clear in its covering letter to the consultation document that it proposed to pursue this separately, once the proposals for the provision of new drains and sewers have been taken forward towards implementation. A research contract has been let to look at what can be done in respect of existing private sewers.
Defra: MARCH 2002
ANNEX 'A'
SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER ON THE PROVISION OF NEW DRAINS AND SEWERS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
SECTION 3: RATIONALISING STANDARDS AND CONTROLS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS:
VIEWS ON:
SUPPORTED
(Y)
NOT SUPPORTED
(N)
CONDITIONAL
(Y?/N?)
NO COMMENT
-
1. the proposal to introduce a single standard for sewers;
89
5
22/1
20
2. the proposal to require that single standard to be the adoptable standard;
76
7
22/5
27
3. the proposal that Sewers for Adoption should become the basis for delivering the required standard;
61
14
22/4
36
4. the proposal that any sewer (defined as pipework draining more than one dwelling) should be built to an adoptable standard;
52
13
24/10
38
5. the presumption that most new sewers should be adopted, particularly any sewer directly linked to a mains sewer;
42
8
23/4
60
6. effectiveness of the existing consultation arrangements and, in particular, whether sewerage undertakers are being consulted adequately in respect of development plans and planning applications;
1
30
9/20
77
7. the proposal to strengthen Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 23 by including the requirement that all sewers be built to adoptable standard and by advising developers to consult sewerage undertakers;
45
5
10/1
76
8. the proposal that the review of Building Regulations need to consider amendments necessary to Part H to put into place a single adoptable standard for the construction of all sewers.
47
1
11/1
77
SECTION 4: CLARIFYING THE PROVISIONS IN THE WATER INDUSTRY ACT 1991 FOR NEW PUBLIC SEWERS
VIEWS ON:
SUPPORTED
(Y)
NOT SUPPORTED
(N)
CONDITIONAL
(Y?/N?)
NO COMMENT
-
1. the extent to which statutory undertakers, or others, recognise that the duty in section 94 is absolute;
3
29
3/15
87
2. if so, the extent of that duty and whether it is reasonable to require sewerage undertakers to provide strategic sewers;
23
7
14/6
87
3. whether the concept of strategic sewers should cover all offsite sewers;
20
9
6/11
91
4. whether new guidance is required on any or all of the following, and in each case how that could best be provided:
(a) the duty to provide effectual drainage (section 94);
95
(b) the regimes (including cost apportionment) for requisitioning and adoption of sewers; (c) the provision to overcome actual or potential amenity problems (section 101A); (d) the enhancement of a proposed drain or sewer to a public sewer (section 112). 5. the scope for using OFWAT's Information Note 11 as a means of disseminating some or all of these messages.
19
4
10/4
100
SECTION 5: IMPROVING AWARENESS OF OWNERSHIP OF AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTAINING DRAINS AND SEWERS:
VIEWS ON:
SUPPORTED
(Y)
NOT SUPPORTED
(N)
CONDITIONAL
(Y?/N?)
NO COMMENT
-
1. the use of Land Registry records to increase awareness of location and responsibility of maintenance of drains and sewers;
49
8
17/3
60
2. the use of the 'House sellers information pack', pre-contract enquiries, and local land search enquiries to increase awareness;
46
2
15/5
69
3. requiring undertakers to take responsibility for new laterals outside the curtilage, and whether that would require legislation to clarify responsibility and to give access to the third party land;
46
10
17/2
62
4. the use of Sewers for Adoption to define an acceptable standard for new laterals;
36
8
9/1
83
5. requiring new drains to include an inspection chamber close to the curtilage
45
5
15/4
68
SECTION 6: COST IMPLICATIONS:
VIEWS ON:
SUPPORTED
(Y)
NOT SUPPORTED
(N)
CONDITIONAL
(Y?/N?)
NO COMMENT
-
36
4
8/5
84
2. statutory undertakers;
20
14
10/4
89
3. builders and developers;
18
7
10/11
91
4. local authorities
33
2
12/1
89
Published 28 March 2002
Environmental Protection Consultation Index
Water Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page