💩 Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

• Helen Morgan, MP for North Shropshire, highlighted the issue of inadequate sewage systems causing raw sewage to back up into new homes and gardens in her constituency.

• Several MPs shared similar concerns from their constituencies, mentioning instances where new housing developments led to sewage overflows and flooding in existing properties.

• The debate emphasized the need for water companies to be statutory consultees in the planning process to ensure that new developments do not overwhelm existing infrastructure.

• The current system, where water companies are not required consultees, can result in new homes being built without adequate water and sewage infrastructure, leading to significant issues for residents.

• Some MPs proposed implementing schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for new developments to manage water run-off effectively.

• The Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook, recognized the problems but expressed caution about making water companies statutory consultees, fearing it could slow down housing development.

• The government aims to ensure that housing developments are accompanied by necessary infrastructure, with an update to the National Planning Policy Framework to include sustainable drainage practices.

• The Minister highlighted the government’s commitment to addressing water infrastructure through the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which seeks to speed up infrastructure projects.

• Concerns were raised about section 104 agreements, which are meant to ensure new sewers meet standards before water companies adopt them, but have been failing in some cases.

• The debate concluded with a call for continued dialogue and action to resolve these critical issues, ensuring that new homes do not lead to environmental and public health crises.

The session on ‘Housing Development Planning: Water Companies’ exhibits a moderate level of disagreement among the participating Members of Parliament. Although there is a broad consensus on the need for better integration of water companies in the housing development planning process and the necessity for improved infrastructure to manage water and sewage issues, specific points of contention arise that result in a rating of 3 for disagreement. Here is a detailed explanation of the disagreements observed in the session:

1. Role of Water Companies as Statutory Consultees: A significant disagreement revolves around the status of water companies in the planning process. Many Liberal Democrat MPs, including Helen Morgan and Jess Brown-Fuller, strongly advocated for making water companies statutory consultees to ensure their early involvement and accountability in planning decisions. However, the Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook, resisted this suggestion, citing that it might allow water companies to oppose new housing developments rather than ensuring infrastructure readiness. This represents a clear policy disagreement between the opposition and the government.

2. Implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act: There was agreement on the general need for sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), but disagreement about the methodology to achieve this. Liberal Democrat MPs urged the immediate adoption of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, seeing it as a critical mechanism for enforcing SUDS. The Minister responded that the government is considering whether to commence Schedule 3 but did not commit to an immediate action, indicating a divergence on the urgency and method of implementation.

3. Criticism of Government Action and Past Performance: There is some level of disagreement about the effectiveness of past and current government actions. Paul Holmes (Conservative) criticized the Liberal Democrats’ past governance and suggested that their current proposals might be overly simplistic. Conversely, Liberal Democrat members pointed out failures in governance under previous administrations, reflecting political disagreement rather than policy disagreement.

4. Section 104 Agreements and Bonding System: Helen Morgan and others expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of section 104 agreements and the bonding system, suggesting that they are not functioning effectively. The Minister acknowledged these concerns but did not commit to immediate changes, suggesting further review instead. This indicates a disagreement on the urgency and necessity of revising current legal frameworks concerning water infrastructure agreements.

Overall, while there are clear points of disagreement on policy specifics and implementation timelines, there is also considerable alignment on the broader issue of enhancing water infrastructure to support housing development. The disagreements are policy-oriented and ideologically driven, with both sides presenting arguments tied to their respective solutions and criticisms of the other’s approach, leading to a moderate rating of 3 for the level of disagreement within the session.