What is Water Neutrality and How Can Councils adopt a robust policy?

What is Water Neutrality and How Can Councils adopt a robust policy?

WATER NEUTRALITY and EVERYONE’S WATER FOOTPRINT

 Water is an essential natural resource and the world’s freshwater supply is shown to be gradually decreasing year by year. Environment agencies and institutions have started to explore the concept and process of Water Neutrality as people across the globe begin to recognise the importance of their water footprint. It is a possible solution to reduce water usage and encourage positive actions within communities.

MAINTAIN THE BALANCE OF WATER USES AND REPLACEMENTS FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT, TOWN AND VILLAGE, EVERY PERSON

Water neutrality is the process whereby communities and institutions maintain a balance in their water usage by investing and funding projects that help to increase freshwater supply and reduce water usage. The development of a water neutral project will not add pressure to the overall water demand of a region. It will eventually have a net-zero impact on natural water supplies.

Water neutrality will become a necessary requirement for all developments in the future as the existing water supply in the world decreases. After a new development is constructed the total water demand should be the same as it was before the development was started.

There are 3 steps to achieving water neutrality:

  1. Reduce water usage
  2. Reuse water
  3. Offset water

Reducing water usage – Efficient water devices for taps, toilets, urinals, showers and other appliances such as low flush systems. Smart meters can indicate to consumers how much they are using and whether there are any leaks.

Reusing and recycling water – Rainwater harvesting systems from roofs, which can either be on an individual dwelling basis or for whole new developments. Grey water recycling from showers, etc which can be used again but requires a separate set of pipes and drains.  Black water recycling is usually the water recycled from toilets which needs to go through several treatment processes.

Offsetting water – Funding water efficiency audits. Retrofitting houses, schools and public buildings to enhance water efficiency.

It is estimated that a water neutral home could save about 112,000 litres of water per year and around 43.8 kg of carbon emissions produced from the water supply. A home might reduce water and energy bills by approx. £44 per year. It also is good for the environment as it reduces the amount of water taken from rivers, lakes and groundwater sources.

Gatwick Sub Regional Water Cycle Study

Water neutrality is not currently defined in legislation but is drawn from the Gatwick Sub Regional Water Cycle Study which states that ‘For every new development, total water use in the Sussex North Water Supply Zone after the development must be equal or less than the total water use in the region before the new development.’  Southern Water’s Sussex North Water Supply Zone is the first area in the country to apply this requirement. However, water neutrality will increasingly be necessary in other areas as demand for new housing is implemented. The Environment Agency has produced a list of areas which are subject to serious water stress. This covers many water companies in the Midlands and in the South East, including Thames Water which serves the Cranleigh area.

The Environment Agency

The Environment Agency has concluded that water neutrality will become a key factor in balancing the Government’s policy of delivering an accelerated rate of housing growth against constraints on the current and future availability of water resources. Achieving 100% level of water neutrality is an aspiration and it may not be possible or appropriate to set such a demanding target. Drivers and constraints are likely to be applied which will result in a lower %.

Nutrient neutrality and water neutrality are separate issues

Nutrient neutrality and water neutrality are separate issues with different causes but both effectively create a moratorium on new development. The Local Government Association has established guidelines to tackle both of these problems. Cleaning up our water courses is a crucial issue and is the responsibility of both the water companies who are still discharging raw sewage into rivers on a regular basis and the farming industry which will need to be given better guidance on the use of fertilisers and livestock practice in areas affected by nutrient neutrality.

ACTION REQUIRED

The level of action required to address water supply issues can be summarised as follows:

Water Companies – Reduce leaks, provide infrastructure to increase supply and to change practices to reduce demand for water.

Industry and agriculture – Change practices to reduce demand for water.

Owners of existing homes and buildings – Change practices to reduce demand for water.

Developers – Build to the highest standard of water efficiency.

In conclusion, we as individuals or through pressure groups, must continue to press our Local and District Councillors for the introduction of both nutrient neutrality and water neutrality in their Planning Policies so that improvements can be made in coming years for the benefit of future generations.

Reference sources:

Sigma Earth water neutrality and how it can be achieved

https://sigmaearth.com/water-neutrality-how-can-it-be-achieved/

Environment Agency 

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/water-neutrality

West Sussex Council

westsussex.gov.uk/media/17040/ne_positionstatement.pdf

Local Government  

https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/stuck-neutral-call-partnership

Our comments & Call to ACTION

Our Comments below & Call to Action ‘CHANGES TO THE CURRENT PLANNING SYSTEM CONSULTATION ACROSS ENGLAND’ by  Central Government

read and respond here  – needs to be responded to by end of September  –  https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations

An interesting take on the document can be found here

Here is our take on the Government’s Consultation which we will respond to as a Civic Society –

  1. This document is to be viewed alongside ‘Planning for the Future’, which needs to be responded to by end of October “Planning for the Future” https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations – read and respond here 
  2. Government wants to improve the planning system but says it can’t be tweaked – needs to be a new creation. Proposals involve fundamental reforms of the planning system to improve its effectiveness; a) Changes to the Standard Method currently used for assessing local housing need; b) Securing of First Homes, sold at a discount to market price for first time buyers: c) Temporarily lifting the small sites threshold below which developers do not need to contribute to affordable housing, up to 40-50 units; d) Extending the current Permission in Principle to major development so landowners and developers now have a fast route to secure the principle of development for housing on sites; e) Including making sure Neighbourhood plans are robust, fit for purpose and respected, the government hopes; f) Overall strategy is too fast enable planning permissions that stand up and don’t have to go to appeals system; g) Numbers are key – no dodging the government’s requirements for a million dwellings during their parliament to be built out; h) The new requirement for fast tracked (30 months) Local Plan development will be the only time for the provision for local consultation and embracing – e.g. Flooding. Once agreed the LP will stand for 8 years unchanged.
  3. The new Standard Method for assessing local housing need wants to identify sufficient land for housing over at least the next 15 years so that the current under-delivery of necessary housing is remedied. A base line is to be established which is the higher of 0.5% of existing housing stock or the latest projected average annual housing growth over a 10 year period. This is then adjusted for market signals such as affordability in certain areas.

By using statistical growth it puts homes where there is current development not where they are needed. Its hypothesis is to over provide on the housing target of 300,000 per annum by giving a mandatory requirement on Local Authorities of 337,000 because ‘not all homes that are planned are built’ and ‘the new Standard Method is designed to provide enough land to account for the drop-off rate between permissions and completions’.

  1. The government’s intention is to provide a minimum of 25% of all affordable housing units secured through developer contributions as first time homes. The adjustment for affordability will never do what it intends. Why would homes be offered at a lesser margin when the build rate can be reduced and homes can be eked out to match demand at higher prices? Surely it is better for Local Authorities to insist that schemes are revised to reflect the demand for affordable houses in each relevant area rather than let developers be granted planning permission for larger dwellings that are unlikely to be built until the demand improves nationally and locally. Developers will be still able to provide contributions for off-site affordable housing but this tends to create ghettos rather than a cohesive mix of dwellings.
  2. It is proposed to introduce an exemption from the Community Infrastructure Levy for first time homes. Small and medium sized developers will be allowed to defer Community Infrastructure Levy payments to assist their cash flow.
  3. It is proposed to raise the small sites threshold to up to 40/50 new homes. There could be an adverse effect if developers attempt to bring forward larger sites in phases of up to 40/50 homes.
  4. It is proposed to grant extension of the Permission in Principle consent regime for major developments. The first stage will establish whether a site is suitable for housing and this will last for 5 years without conditions being attached to it. Unless contested under the new ‘Planning for the Future’ legislation landowners will be able to offer siters up for consideration far in excess of those currently envisaged. At present there are 1,000,000 homes in England for which planning permission has been granted but not built. This, at 300,000 per annum, is over 3 years requirement. This, along with the 187,000 per annum already in adopted local plans, would give more than 8 years supply at 300,000 per annum. The government needs to concentrate on what powers it will give Local Authorities to enforce developers to fulfil their responsibilities. Developers should be given more encouragement to use brownfield sites rather than more easily processed green field sites.
  5. In summary the following should be incorporated into the reform of the planning system.
  • Homes should be built where they are needed not determined by a ‘one size fits all’ formula.
  • Development should be led by plans set by Local Authorities together with their residents.
  • Developers should be forced to build the houses for which they have received planning permission. This is fundamental.
  • Developers’ ability to avoid obligation through viability should be removed.
  • Contributions to build all relevant infrastructure should be established at an early stage of any development. Or be made a pre-condition of approval/commencement.
  • Percentages for affordable homes should be set locally.
  • Any changes to the planning system should require primary legislation.
  • The 5 year land supply should be scrapped.

so there you have it – complicated, incomplete and above all feels rushed – what do you want us to do about this consultation?

Leader of Wokingham Borough Council had this to say in conclusion – “The “Changes to the current planning system” running alongside it has an end date is October 1. This has the meat. No debate! No appeal! It only needs ministerial approval, implementable by a simple decision on his behalf. This paper changes the standard method, allows for fifty homes to be built without affordable housing, extends the permission in principle consent regime and has first time homes discounts. It does all of these within the existing planning system.”  

Another interesting take on the future of Surrey was highlighted recently – concerning how County Level planners come together to develop strategy that affects us all….. hover over the titles to bring up the documents.

Here is another way of putting our concerns –

These proposals change the planning system to one that is led by developers as opposed to by the people through heir local council. This completely undermines localism.

Introducing a new standard methodology for calculating housing need would increase Waverley’s annual allocation for 590 dwellings to 835 dwellings. As usual London and the South East is earmarked as the most concentrated area of growth (London and the South East) however it is also one of the most constrained areas, e.g. by the Metropolitan Green Belt. This puts enormous pressure on the limited areas of countryside beyond the green belt, like Cranleigh. There is no consideration for the consequences of large numbers of houses being concentrated in these ever decreasing areas, not selected because they are sustainable locations but purely because they do not have the policy constraints of the green belt. Developers have no incentive to build excessive housing in these areas as their objective is to maintain high housing prices, they therefore trickle feed the housing which does not match the delivery numbers required by the Gov and forces more planning permissions to be granted as a 5 year housing supply becomes impossible to maintain. This proposal puts even more pressure on small market towns and villages which do not have the supporting infrastructure and effectively creates unsustainable dormitory towns with a heavy reliance on the private car.

It is also difficult to understand why Woking’s numbers will be reduced under this proposal, despite the supporting infrastructure and more urban dense residential areas, and particularly when Waverley’s allocated housing numbers were increased to meet 50% of Woking’s unmet need?

These numbers that will have to be concentrated in small areas across our borough will have a significant and negative effect on our natural environment which is already facing huge challenges with increased growth and climate change. We are already in an area of water stress and this is becoming more apparent each year when residents have repeated interruptions in water supply, necessitating the reliance on deliveries of bottled water. These proposals also do nothing to tackle the substantial numbers of planning permissions nationally and locally that have already been granted and that have not been delivered by developers. In fact the opposite is true, this proposal could facilitate even larger land banks and slower delivery manipulating the housing market for profit but not for the benefit of the wider population.

The new standard methodology does not take account for the impact on the economy and on residents from Covid-19 and it would appear that any methodology based on 2018 figures is now fundamentally flawed. In fact it would seem negligent to even propose altering the planning system under the current circumstances when the future of the economy is subject to so many variables, including a downward trend of house prices or even a collapse, which could result in policy which is not fit for purpose.

The far reaching impacts of the pandemic will begin to become clearer towards the beginning of next year, any review of the planning system should be deferred until these impacts are understood and can be taken into account. This is especially pertinent to affordability criteria which the proposals assume requires intervention by way of higher housing numbers to reduce prices. However this does not take into account the real prospect of a generally weakened economy from Covid-19 and conversely could actually contribute towards the collapse of a downward local market by this constructed intervention forcing over supply.

First Homes just looks like Starter Homes rebranded. There were no homes delivered under the Gov starter homes initiative and it was not even welcomed by the developers. This intervention by Gov in the housing market could have the effect of artificially propping up house prices. It is widely recognised that the need for low income households is for rented homes as this is the cheapest way to keep a roof over people’s heads. This proposal would undermine the delivery of more affordable rented homes and divert support away from those most in need.

Existing shared ownership schemes are more affordable than First Homes and imposing a 25% level of First Homes on development sites would also negatively impact on their delivery. Will be CIL exempt.

Increasing the small sites threshold from 10 to 40/50 dwellings would detrimentally impact the amount of affordable housing that is delivered across the borough. Particularly bearing in mind that areas like ours rely on many small sites to deliver new housing and we don’t have that many very large sites, so opportunities for affordable housing would be limited by this proposal. With this and the First Homes proposal really impacting on the amount of affordable rented homes that can be delivered.

Th proposal to remove the restriction in the current Permission in Principle regulations on major development appears in the main to be linked to the initial cost to developers only. With 9 out of 10 planning applications approved it is difficult to understand why this should be necessary. Major development has far more impact on an area and it is difficult to understand how these impacts can be suitably investigated over the required 5 week decision period. It also limits the ability of local residents to comment on major applications with major effects on an area.

Deadline 1 Oct

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907215/200805_Changes_to_the_current_planning_system_FINAL_version.pdf

Cranleigh Civic Society News

Cranleigh Civic Society News

Pub meeting this week decided the following – publish without delay  that Waverley has received planning application for 10 more houses in Amlets Lane! and ask people to look into it and write in their feelings about it. Planning Application WA/2019/1552 – Valid From 18/09/2019.  Outline application for erection of 10 dwellings with access.The developers are proposing an infill between the Carla Homes site and the existing properties facing Amlets Lane near the entrance to St Josephs School. Although not a large scheme it sets several precedents if approved.

  1. They are making a case for additional housing outside the settlement boundary indicated on the Neighbourhood Plan which still has to be given final approval.
  2. They suggest that the new Primary School may not be built on the Glebelands site – fields, therefore this will inhibit the building of housing on the existing Upper School site and free up housing allocation within the village on other sites.
  3. They also state that as Waverley has not yet taken up its full allocation of housing other sites around Cranleigh should be considered such as this one in Amlets Lane. If this principle is accepted it opens the gate for yet more applications in our area beyond those already approved.
  4. The proposed scheme further urbanizes an existing rural lane which is carrying more traffic than is appropriate for its width.                                                                                           Over to you

NEXT PUB MEETINGS WILL TAKE PLACE ON WEDNESDAYS NOT MONDAYS – 2nd IN EACH MONTH = 13th NOVEMBER – PLEASE SHARE

Community Infrastructure Levy  lost £s

Community Infrastructure Levy lost £s

CCS received a grumbling letter – it goes something like this –

Let’s talk about Community Infrastructure Levy now at last we have a LOCAL PLAN, but what does this mean?

An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives our planners at Waverley Borough Council the power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc.  and very importantly it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY known as CIL for short. 

What is  CIL?

 CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for the developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! and so it is. But what of the housing already approved? approaching 2000 houses throughout the borough. Well unfortunately

CIL is not retrospective.

How much will Waverley charge? www.waverley.gov.uk/CIL

According to WBC’s website Waverley’s draft proposal  sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3 bed house), except quite reasonably for “Affordable Housing” where there is no charge. So taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to build away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of a minimum £60 MILLION pounds. £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!

 How could this have happened we may ask? It happened because our planning officers at Waverley failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.

How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners

The basic criteria affecting us as council tax payers was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy the Central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking B C have had an agreed  Local Plan for some years  that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s to cover their shortfall! So WBC’s Yearly requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be “Affordable”. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector when I last looked. 

What of democracy?

Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000 are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?

 Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?

Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 Blight? Unfortunately not: there will, however, be a new roundabout at Shalford, just 100 or so metres from the existing roundabout, which feels as if it will bring the traffic to a complete standstill; and the Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, so that’s a relief!!! There will also be a new Canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.

What of the Railway?

No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and not affordable. 

What of DUNSFOLD AERODROME?

There is a plan for 1,700 or so houses plus factories, shops, a school, a medical centre etc. awaiting Government inspector approval. Oh and in the future the prospect of an increase to 2,600 houses or perhaps 3,500 houses or most likely the full 6,000! Sadly, however, it seems that the developers have convinced the powers that be at Waverley that the development of Dunsfold would be jeopardised by the imposition of CIL on the whole development, so there will be NO CIL on the entire development – thereby saving the developers up to £100 MILLION over the life of the development – so that’s ok then.

So let’s hope the plan goes ahead fully and that our Planners use all their discretion to put right the wrongs – spreading the housing out more fairly – hunting for better sites……    they can – but will they?

Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1 Adopted

Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1 Adopted

20 Feb 2018  Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1 adopted

was adopted tonight:

  • For – 41
  • Against – 1
  • Abstained – 3

Even those who opposed or had serious reservations took the view that the Waverley area would have more protection with a LP. Even with it’s flaws,  WBC would be able to take back control.  No longer would planning be developer led.

All three Cranleigh Councillors expressed their deep concerns about Waverley’s Local Plan. But they decided to vote For IT because the consequences of having no LP would be disastrous. Nothing will undo the damage that has already been inflicted on Cranleigh but further damage can be minimised with the LP.

http://www.waverley.gov.uk/news/article/337/waverley_s_local_plan_is_adopted

Waverley’s local plan part 1 – Cranleigh Society’s opinion was shared before the vote –

Whilst Cranleigh is viewed by Waverley as one of the four main “settlements”, it has some serious infrastructure problems which the Inspector, Jonathan Bore, has not addressed in the report, even though they were pointed out to him by Cranleigh Civic Society and others at the Inquiry.

  • Cranleigh is only served by already congested B-roads, and lanes (we call them “rat runs”) which do not even qualify for B-road status, and there are no plans in his report (or in the Local Plan) to solve this.
  • Any new dwellings being built in Cranleigh rely on sewage treatment at the Elmbridge Road works.  In recent years, the so-called river that the effluent is pumped into, Cranleigh Waters, has developed serious flow problems, sometimes ceasing flowing altogether.  The river has become polluted, with local angling societies reporting dying fish stocks to the Environment Agency, and there is currently no plan by Waverley to solve this problem.  The Inspector has not considered this in his report.
  • 29.6% of all Cranleigh’s drinking water supply network is made from old asbestos cement pipes which are at the end of their 50 to 70 year design life, and they are regularly bursting releasing free asbestos fibres into the water supply.  Some of the pipes recently tested by Thames Water are made from highly dangerous blue asbestos.  Waverley are aware of this problem, and it has been suggested to them that all the old asbestos cement pipes be replaced before any new housing is connected to the network. Again, this important matter has not been considered by the Inspector in his report.
  • There are no plans to create new local jobs, so increasing the population will simply create a need to commute to work, which is hardly sustainable.

We accept that there is a need to build new houses in SE England and we do not have a problem with Cranleigh taking its fair share, but unless the infrastructure problems are addressed before the plan is published and put into place, we see big problems ahead.

Modern town planning (actually even Ebenezer Howard said this in the 1920s) states that “houses should be built where the jobs are”.  Modern thinking is to build settlements as close as possible to places where people can work or to at least give people easy access to commute.  Of the four settlements in the report, Cranleigh is least able to meet this criteria.  It has only B-roads and narrow lanes leading out of it, no railway station and so on.  The obvious place to build substantial quantities of new houses, in the Waverley area, is Milford, as:

(1) It has a mainline railway station that can easily be extended to take the new 12 car trains to London; (2)  It is close to both the A31 and A3; (3) It is close to the job markets in Guildford, Godalming and Farnham; (4) It is adjacent to the River Wey and therefore readily lends itself to the building of a new major sewage treatment works that can meet the needs of the latest 2017 implementations of the Water Framework Directive.  Yet I think we are correct in saying that the Local Plan only envisages 180 new dwellings in Milford?  If this is the situation we have to ask “Why?”

Richard Bryant

 Vice Chair.

 CRANLEIGH CIVIC SOCIETY.

Go to Waverley Borough Council  website and complete the consultation if you feel you can.

Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies

 

Waverley Leader advised of No Confidence Vote

Waverley Leader advised of No Confidence Vote

Cranleigh Civic Society have confirmed the vote of “No Confidence” taken by those attending the public meeting on 25 May 2017 to the Leader, Julia Potts, of Waverley Borough Council and are now investigating in full the options available to us and the next steps we will be taking.


Dear Ms Potts

As you are aware, Cranleigh Civic Society recently organised a public meeting at our village hall at which we shared our knowledge of what is happening now, and what is being planned for the future of our village. Many of the 229 people who attended passionately expressed their anger and concerns about the volume of housing your team has approved to be built on our green fields and how many more you intend to send our way.

Equal to this were the worries about how our already poor infrastructure will cope with the huge increase in the population. As promised, I relayed your message of how much you care about our village, and I must tell you it was not well received.

At the end of the meeting we offered the opportunity for them to vote by a show of hands if they wanted to send you a strong and clear message that they do not have confidence in your team’s ability to care for the quality of our lives and wellbeing  through your actions and inaction; 226 voted to support this statement, one opposed and two abstained.

I trust this message is clear.

Phill Price

Chairman

Cranleigh Civic Society