Southern Water — House of Commons, 2019-10-28
Topic: Environment
Gregory David Clark (Independent, Unknown): The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous defender of his constituents’ interests. The fact that he is here after midnight, even on a debate on Tunbridge Wells, to fight the good fight for his constituents is a credit to him. I am giving an example of drainage and sewerage services because it is of particular importance for the reason I will give The town of Paddock Wood is situated in a low-lying area quite close to the River Medway that frequently floods. When it does so, the overload of the current network has unacceptable, unhealthy and frankly disgusting consequences for residents One of my constituents, who lives on an estate near the centre of the town, described how for 10 years her front garden has been regularly flooded with water containing sewage, toilet paper and other waste, coming up from a manhole cover in the middle of the road outside her property. A resident in a different part of town described how he and his neighbours have submitted complaints time and again about sewage and toilet paper being washed out into their road Paddock Wood Town Council and the local borough and county councillors, to whom I pay tribute for their tenacity over the years, have highlighted the problem, demanding that it is addressed and warning of the obvious need for investment in greater capacity Southern Water has admitted that the infrastructure needs upgrading before any additional demands on it can be contemplated. In 2015 Southern Water told me in a letter: "There is current inadequate capacity for any future developments." This followed a capacity check carried out by the company in 2014, which established the need for: "General upgrades to sections of the Southern Water public sewer network" and "a requirement to increase the capacity of the Station Road wastewater pumping station by approximately 8%." Indeed the company’s then chief executive wrote to me, saying: "It will be our recommendation that the pumping station be upsized before any further properties are built in this area." Paddock Wood is now subject to plans for at least an additional 1,000 homes across three major developments, on top of the 3,250 homes already there. Initially, Southern Water’s advice to planners was consistent with its previous statements that the local network was at capacity. On two of the sites—300 dwellings at Church Farm and 375 at Mascalls Court Farm—the borough council informed me that "additional off site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required and these details have to be agreed with Southern Water." At Church Farm, Southern said: "We advised the developer that they need to install a parallel storage sewer to cater for additional flows…We will install the sewer under section 98 regulations, which will be funded in part by developer contributions." However, as housing development has proceeded in Paddock Wood the promised infrastructure investment has not appeared. Indeed the current chief executive of the company wrote to me in 2017 to say: "I can confirm that we are not currently in receipt of a valid section 98 application for any of the proposed sites in Paddock Wood." The company said: "We have a legal obligation to connect new developments to the sewerage system and are not in a position to formally object to plans for development." Moreover, Southern has written to the council to say that new sites can commence development without the necessary improvements that it had identified as being needed Plans to upgrade the sewerage network in Paddock Wood, despite repeated discussions with Paddock Wood Town Council, have come to nothing. Residents of Paddock Wood now see development happening that they were assured would take place only when the sewerage system had been upgraded to deal with the current overuse and problems and to remove the worsening of that situation, let alone to cope with the planned development I met representatives of Southern Water, members of Paddock Wood Town Council, and officers and members of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Kent County Council on 7 September. All those local representatives were dismayed to discover that the previous plans were not even going to be proceeded with, and that the company had in effect gone back to the drawing board to consider what could be done about the capacity in Paddock Wood In the meantime, new homes are being built and connected to a sewerage system that is already so inadequate that it results in sewage flowing through the streets and the flooding of existing properties. Enough is enough. The people of Paddock Wood are not nimbys opposing all development; quite the opposite. In fact the town has, without fuss, accommodated more new development compared with its size than most other towns in the south-east of England. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that, in doing so, residents should not be taken for granted or taken for a ride I have focused on the town of Paddock Wood this evening, given that this is a short debate, but a sense of distrust and, in my view, justified scepticism also applies to Hawkhurst, Hawkenbury, Capel, Tunbridge Wells, Southborough and many other communities in my constituency. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), wanted me to make mention of the fact that many of his communities are also affected by pretty much identical problems. My constituents are not surprised that the company was this year fined the record sum of £126 million for failures including a lack of necessary investment. The saga of Paddock Wood leads local residents to endorse the verdict of the chief executive of the water regulator, Ofwat, who has stated: "The company is being run with scant regard for its responsibilities to society and to the environment." I would therefore like to ask the Minister three things. First, will she intervene to insist that Southern Water present comprehensive infrastructure plans without further delay to the community of Paddock Wood and others in my constituency where development is being considered, and that it implement those plans? Secondly, will she strengthen the powers of local councils to require water companies to make an assessment of the infrastructure needs, and not to approve new development until it is certain that the infrastructure will be provided before or at the same time as the development? Thirdly, will she accept that if we as a nation are to support development, whether it is in the town or the countryside, commercial or residential, the rules should be established and acted upon, and that there is always I before E: infrastructure before expansion If we do these things, we can look forward to a future in which new development is seen not as something that is bound to make existing residents’ lives worse, but as something that offers the prospect of improvements to the quality of life for everyone in the locality. My constituents want that assurance. They want action, and they want to see it now.