Letters between Andrew Griffith MP and Karl Roberts

The following is an accessible version of letters published in our latest news post.

Letter from Andrew Griffith MP to Karl Roberts, Director of Growth and Interim CEO

Letter dated 11 December 2023

Our ref: 231211/MT /002

Dear Karl,

The difficult events of the past two weeks in and around Barnham have illustrated in sharp relief what many ofus have been saying for a great deal of time - too much development has led to the overwhelming of road drainage and foul water infrastructure flooding homes, making roads impassable and causing consequential pollution from the inundation of the sewerage system. Nor is it just Barnham: the residents of Eastergate, Westergate, Aldingbourne and Fontwell are all impacted directly and of course indirectly by traffic from diverted routes.

To those who understand the geography (and the history) the cause is clear: An inappropriate volume of housing development creating impermeable surfaces from which water runs off quickly overwhelming natural drainage in the rifes, which in previous decades protected inhabitants. Moreover, Arun District Council has been repeatedly warned of precisely these outcomes when preparing previous local plans. This allocation and planning consents predate me as the local Member of Parliament but are something since my election in 2019 I have always been 100% against.

Until a comprehensive report and remediation plans are published, I insist that Arun District Council - who have historically placed far too high a proportion of new housing in these areas - must impose an immediate moratorium on all new consents and additional developments in Barnham, Eastergate, Westergate and Aldingboume. It is simply not acceptable that residents face such profound impacts because of Town Hall negligence.

I went to visit Barnham for myself, meeting with Southern Water executives and engineers and the families who have had to vacate their homes for the second time this year due to flooding. I also witnessed the flooding around the village into the Barnham Rife and got a better understanding of the flood risks and sewerage infrastructure in the area. If you have not done so yourselves, then I strongly urge you to do the same.

Andrew Griffith MP

cc. Philippa Dart - Interim Chief Executive
cc. Cllr Matt Stanley - Leader

Letter from Karl Roberts, Director of Growth and Interim CEO to Andrew Griffith MP

Letter dated 21 December 2023

Your Ref: 231211/MT/002
Our Ref: KR/SDB

Dear Andrew

Thank you for your letter of the 11 December 2023.

I believe we can all agree that the recent flooding events have had a severe impact upon not only the residents and businesses of Barnham but also in other places as well such as Bognor Regis. However, I cannot agree with you that these ills are a result of the actions of this Council.

Firstly, there is a collapsed sewer in Barnham Road which has resulted in a full road closure.

I understand this repair is proving to be difficult due to further issues that Southern Water have encountered including a void under the road which means this work may take some time to complete. This has been complicated by a recent burst water main adjacent.

In addition, I also understand in nearby Elm Grove, Southern Water is repairing a sewer, this is a long-term repair which is re-laying the sewer, and this work will take place until the end of February 2024. I understand they were pumping flows from Elm Grove sewer into Orchard Way in a controlled manner so as to not surcharge their sewer. However, this is due to be changed to direct the flow along Elm Grove and into the sewer on Barnham Road.

Both of these events are understandably causing difficulties to residents and businesses, but they are not related to new development or the actions of this Council. As you will be aware the road network for the diversionary routes is largely rural roads and the extra traffic, along with the surface water and groundwater, is leading to the development of more potholes and the breaking up of the carriageway edge. I understand West Sussex County Council are monitoring the situation carefully and have taken action to urgently address potholes in this area.

If we now return to the issue of new development, it is important to recognise the legal framework within which both ourselves and Southern Water have to operate.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no right conferred by the 1991 Water Industry Act on the statutory undertaker (in this case Southern Water) to select the point of connection or importantly, to refuse permission to connect to the sewer on the basis that the proposed point of connection is for some reason open to objection even where the sewer will be overloaded by any additional discharge. This can only be addressed through legislation to amend the relevant act. This Council, probably along with most others would support any action you decided to take to champion a change in the relevant legislation to address this issue.

It therefore follows that if no objection through the planning process can be taken by a sewerage undertaker to a connection with a public sewer on the grounds of lack of capacity of the sewer at the preferred connection point, then that makes it difficult for Councils to do the same. The only action we can take through the planning process is to use planning conditions to effectively defer the absolute right of a developer to connect to existing foul water infrastructure in order to give the sewerage undertaker a reasonable opportunity to make sure that the public sewer will be able to accommodate the increased loading that a new connection would bring. We do this where Southern Water advise that it is appropriate. It would be helpful if sewerage undertakers were all made statutory consultees within the planning process for major residential and commercial developments. Perhaps this is a matter you could also raise with the relevant Secretary of State.

To illustrate what limited powers we have in these matters I would refer you to the outcome of a Planning Appeal to the south of Barnham Station. In this case the Council tried to raise an argument that permission should not be granted because there was no guarantee the required works to upgrade the adjacent sewer would be designed and implemented during the lifetime of any permission

At paragraphs 72-77 the Inspector offered the following comments.

• 72. In respect of foul water disposal, the sewer network from this part of Barnham to the Lidsey Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) passes through the site, directly alongside the Rife. There are existing connection points within the appeal site, the nearest being approximately 1km from the Lidsey WWTW. Notwithstanding the ability to readily connect the appeal proposal on-site into the sewer network ‘downstream’ of existing built development in Barnham, Policy W DM1 of the ALP clearly identifies that drainage within the catchment of the Lidsey WWTW is an issue. This is articulated at paragraph 18.2.6 of the ALP which echoes the submissions from the local community in terms of the history in Barnham of foul water flooding affecting properties and polluting watercourses. The issue appears to stem from surface water inundation of the sewerage system compromising its effective operation. The implementation of SUDs at the appeal site, should not exacerbate the surface water situation but it is also important that the receiving foul water network has existing or potential capacity to appropriately accommodate additional flows from the appeal proposal. Overall, Policy W DM1(3) does not preclude development within the Lidsey WWTW catchment but it does raise the likelihood of careful phasing of development through the use of conditions in terms of the implementation of both surface and foul water drainage systems. Similar is presented in Policy ES1 of NP1.
• 73. The appeal proposal is estimated to generate an additional foul water flow of 1.1litres per second as established with Southern Water through a Level 1 Capacity Check process. The appellant’s uncontested calculations on the hydraulic capacity of the receiving sewer network between the site and Lidsey WWTW are that the additional flow from the appeal proposal would amount to an increase of 2% to the in-pipe flow. Whilst Southern Water advised that additional flow may increase the risk of flooding to existing properties and land, I am satisfied that technical options exist for mitigation were it to be established on further detailed assessment that the modest 2% increase on in-pipe flow could not be accommodated within the existing calibre of the network. This could include upgrading the diameter of some 370metres of public sewer within the appeal site to create additional capacity as well as other infrastructure to provide network capacity.
• 74. Ultimately, it is noted that Southern Water raise no objection to the appeal proposal, confirming their obligations to connect the development to the public sewerage network under Section 106 of Water Industry Act 1991. This detailed work, which would involve hydraulic modelling under the sole custodianship and use of Southern Water, means that any identified network reinforcement is for Southern Water to identify and may take up to 24 months to implement from the date of planning permission. Were this to take longer, the onus would be on the water utility company to operate an interim solution. There is nothing unusual about water utility companies not engaging in the detailed analysis of foul water drainage solutions until there is sufficient certainty in the planning process. Southern Water have suggested a condition clearly linking occupations with sewer capacity being made available and this, together with other related conditions, would give the LPA appropriate control.
• 75. Drawing the threads together on foul water and acknowledging the legitimate concerns given recent events in Barnham, there is sufficient evidence at this stage that the modest additional foul water flows from the appeal proposal can be adequately catered for without increasing the risk of related flooding elsewhere.
• 76. Technical solutions to foul water drainage, will take time, including any necessary consents for sewer capacity reinforcement work affecting water vole habitats and within close proximity of the Barnham Rife watercourse (flood risk activity). In terms of the ability of the appeal proposal to meaningfully assist housing delivery in the next five years, the evidence from Southern Water indicates a 24 month timeframe for reinforcing the local network or an alternative method of drainage should any required infrastructure not be in place within this timeframe. On this basis, I do not see foul water drainage unduly delaying implementation of the appeal proposal. Speculative references to ongoing national issues regarding waste-water treatment standards does not point to a moratorium on future windfall development in Barnham or any substantiated issues regarding the receiving capacity at the Lidsey WWTW.
• 77. I therefore conclude that, subject to conditions, the site can be successfully drained, in respect of both foul and surface water drainage. Accordingly, the proposal would accord with Policies W DM1, W DM2 and W DM3 of the ALP and Policy ES1 of NP1. There would be no conflict with emerging Policies ES1(a)-(c) of NP2. The proposal would also accord with NPPF paragraphs 159-169 on planning and flood risk. The revised FRA accompanying the appeal proposal meets the requirements in the related PPG chapter on ‘Flood Risk and Coastal Change’ including those at paragraphs 30-32 on the level of detailed required for site-specific assessment.

The appeal was allowed and to make matters worse costs were awarded against the Council for effectively raising the concerns we did.

The Council notes the publication of the updated National Planning Policy Framework provides no new insight or guidance on addressing these issues. Conversely, and contrary to your assertion that we should stop, the Secretary of State makes it quite clear in the accompanying speech that he will take to task those Councils that do not deliver the development set out in their Local Plans.

The Council is also disappointed that it did not receive any award from the recent Planning Skills Delivery Fund. Our application was based on supporting the work we undertake in critically examining drainage schemes that are submitted by developers.

The Council is ready to play its part in achieving better outcomes for all but in order to do that we need the Government to take active and positive steps to address the issues raised above and not simply blame local councils for the consequences of us implementing what is Government policy. You will be aware of correspondence from the Council to the Secretary of State regarding the current scale of development that is planned (in response to the existing National Planning Policy Framework) and its impact, but clearly officers won’t be recommending the introduction of any moratorium as a unilateral action as you suggest for all the reasons set out above and I would invite you to withdraw your unfounded allegation of negligence by this Council.

As we are in correspondence on this general subject could I also bring to your attention that I will be writing separately to you regarding a letter that we are co-signatory to which has been sent to the to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to encourage, amongst other things, an amendment to the rules around Environment Agency (EA) enforcement action to ensure that when successful, the EA get to keep the fines from water companies. This money could then be spent on further enforcement and/or environmental enhancements across the water companies’ region; to be clear, not the work that company should be doing anyway, but genuine betterment. This approach would shift the risk/reward balance for the Agency and require water companies to rethink their business model.

We would welcome your support in championing these requests to deliver the changes necessary to improve our water quality, biodiversity, and environment.

If you would like to discuss any of these points, please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Karl Roberts
Director of Growth and Interim CEO

Philippa Dart
Director of Environment & Communities and Interim CEO