Agenda item

Councillor Chandler will move and Councillor Sinden will second the motion.

Councillor Chandler proposed the motion making the following points:

·       Concern expressed about the number of spills happening in the local area and that these may be exacerbated further local development.

·       This was compared with Thames Water stating, as a consultee for new developments, that there was sufficient capacity within the Borough the Council’s development plans.  Had wanted to highlight this discrepancy to Council.

·       Called on the need for proactive action to sort out why there were so many emergency spills and whether this would worsen as a result of further development.

·       Called for the number of discharges to be monitored and to require Thames Water to respond to the Council on planning applications and the likely effect of spills.

Councillor Sinden seconded the motion and called on the Planning Team to use its expertise to ensure that any new development had sufficient sewage and drainage to be able to cope with the extra load.

The Mayor confirmed that it was convenient and conducive to the conduct of business to allow the motion to be addressed at the meeting.

Councillor Brunt, the Leader of the Council, responded to the motion on behalf of the Executive making the following points:

·       Agreed that the number of emergency sewerage discharges was a concern.

·       Had undertaken his own research to verify the number of spills and the effect these were having on the quality of rivers and streams.

·       Highlighted difficulties with the data provided; the volume of the spills or what these contain was not included. Only the number and the time length of spills was provided.

·       Noted that whilst the Council was obligated to protect the whole of the local community, it did not have the powers to regulate or impose penalties on those carrying out the discharges. Rather the responsibility was with the Environment Agency. Welcomed that the Environment Agency was imposing new requirements to reduce the impact of wastewater discharges but called on the Government to do more.

·       As the Local Planning Authority, the Council had a role to assess applications in accordance with Development Management Plan Policies including that they do not have unacceptable pollution impacts.

·       It was the role of the Environment Agency, as a statutory consultee, to independently assess the water quality impact of proposed developments. Therefore, it was not clear why the Council would employ it own consultants to do the same job.

·       Development Management Plan Policies also made it clear that the focus for planning decisions should be whether the proposed development was an acceptable use of land rather than the control of processes and/or emissions which were subject to separate pollution control regimes. Planning decisions should be made assuming that those regimes were operating effectively.

·       It was thought that there was little information that could be added by the Council paying for its own monitoring of spills.

·       The Council was only in a position to request and not require that Thames Water consider discharge data in its response to any proposed development.

The Mayor informed Councillor Brunt that he had exceeded the time allocated for him to speak in response to the motion but that as no other speakers had registered to speak, he was welcome to proceed with the time allocated for him to speak immediately before Councillor Chandler’s final speech. Councillor Brunt continued and noted:

·       Reports on major planning applications did already set out responses from Thames Water, the Environment Agency as well as local flood authorities along with how surface water drainage was managed.

·       How planning applications were reported and assessed was a matter for the Planning Committee or the Development Management Advisory Group rather than Full Council but this matter had not been raised with the Committee.

·       Therefore, whilst he agreed with residents and Members that there was more to be done by water companies to eliminate water spills, he was not able to support the motion. This was because the recommendations it contained would not achieve meaningful change or protection.

Councillor Chandler exercised his right to speak immediately before the vote on the motion. The Councillor was heartened that his concern for the quality of water and the protection of residents was shared. It was acknowledged why the specific recommendations in the motion were not supported and it was hoped that it would be possible to look for ways to ensure that water companies improve the infrastructure including not just for new developments but also existing and older properties.

The Mayor conducted the vote on the motion by show of hands. Fifteen votes were received in support of the motion with twenty-one votes against and five abstentions. The motion was therefore rejected.