Evidence

The evidence collated was considered so important that the report was submitted to the Gray review to form part of the evidence associated with its work.  The Gray review is being headed up by David Gray on behalf of Defra to review the water regulator Ofwat and ensure it is fit for future challenges, examining how it works, whether it offers good value for money and if it is delivering what the Government and customers expect.

The review is due to be completed in the summer of 2011 and will also look at how well the current arrangements, involving Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water, work in protecting water customers and in making sure their views are heard.

General

• SuDS and utilities are raising the most concerns, followed by contaminated land and highways.
• Attendees have not encountered a joined-up, developer-friendly approach from regulatory and approval bodies.
• Water and Sewerage Companies (WaSCs), contaminated land and highways bodies fare better than Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and utilities in terms of performance.
• 80% of attendees want to see binding service level agreements offered by these organisations.

Sewers

• 70% are aware of the forthcoming legislative changes, but almost all believe these have not been effectively communicated and there is a lack of confidence about implementing them in their businesses.
• With existing Section 104 approvals taking 3–6 months, there are concerns about lengthening approval times under both Section 104 and 106.
• 90% would prefer one body to be responsible for drainage infrastructure, performing to guaranteed standards and timescales.
• Over half believe that costs for works under Section 104 Agreements are around 50% more expensive than the equivalent from their own contractors.
• Widespread concern was expressed around the individual interpretation of standards with the transition from 10 to 342 SuDS Approval Bodies (SABs).
• The impact on site layouts, highways and future maintenance is expected to be significant.

SuDS

• Over 90% did not believe that skills and experience for taking responsibility for this exists in local authorities (LAs) and SABs; most expect it to be outsourced.
• 80% believe WaSCs should remain responsible.
• Over 70% expect spoil disposal to increase with new SuDS design standards.
• Over 70% believe that more than a third of their sites will fall to orphaned surface sewers, with concerns about their future maintenance. SABs are not thought to have capacity and skills for SuDS maintenance.
• Delays and abortive costs are expected with the need for simultaneous planning and SuDS applications.
• The possible withdrawal of underground storage in SuDS is a significant concern, with Manchester delegates suggesting that 70% of sites rely on this (not asked in London). The call for further guidance across all issues was unanimous.

Highways

• Few have encountered planners and highways working effectively together, and many have experienced inconsistent interpretation and application of different design guidance (Manual for Streets and Design Bulletin 32)
• Standardised highway design guidance would be welcomed, potentially a re-written Manual for Streets. Authorities are not proactive in progressing safety audit and technical approvals, Section 38 Agreements, maintenance and adoption
• Over half of attendees have seen increases in the number requiring commuted sums and have not encountered the CSS guidance
• Publication of the levels of adoptions by authority would be helpful and support the localism agenda
• Delays in satisfying conditions and increased periods at risk will affect land supply, prices and, potentially, housing delivery.

Water & electricity

• Water and electricity service providers are poorly rated.
• Progress on improvements through competition has been disappointing, but better for electricity than water.
• Few attendees feel they get sufficient cost breakdowns or value for money and want to see greater competition in the water sector.
• For electricity, few were aware of the Ofgem-guaranteed standards, nor had noticed changes since their introduction.
• Recent experiences suggest providers are rescinding quotations, seeking re-pricing and passing on charges for network upgrades.

Issues

Different requirements for sewage and surface infrastructure and inconsistent interpretation of different standards. Similar concerns relate to contaminated land.

• The complexity of the proposed changes and interaction with the numbers of WaSCs, Highway Authorities and SABs. Significant delays are anticipated, resulting from approvals and agreements necessary before commencement of works, impacting on funding and viability.
• Future maintenance of SuDS and issues affecting shared drainage may prove problematic with responsibilities expected to remain with developers. Open drainage design approaches will result in health and safety liabilities for developers.
• Highways experience suggests that SABs are likely to adopt rigorous inspection procedures to identify issues and will not be proactive in pursuing adoptions, or will seek commuted sums.
• The scale and complexity of current changes are daunting and have not been effectively communicated.