Yorkshire Water Authority Bill (By Order) (Hansard, 22 July 1985)

HC Deb 22 July 1985 vol 83 cc792-846 792

§ Order for Second Reading read.

§ 7 pm

§ Mr. Conal Gregory (York)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has been in embryonic form for a number of years. The works proposed in the measure would alleviate flooding from the River Foss, which occurs at its confluence with the River Ouse close to the city centre of York. The River Foss is a left-bank tributary of the River Ouse, joining it some 1,100 m downstream of Lendal bridge.
Flooding from the River Foss is linked directly with flood levels in the River Ouse. The River Foss has been canalised, and within its urban reaches has sufficient capacity to pass one in 100 year flood flows. However, with high levels in the River Ouse, water simply backs up the River Foss.
A similar and related problem occurs with the Tang Hall and Osbaldwick Beck, which, until the late 18th century, were tributaries to the River Foss, but which are now in culvert to the River Ouse, with high level overflows to the Foss.
In recent years, serious flooding has occurred in York—in 1968, 1978 and 1982—the flooding in January 1982 being the worst since 1947 and having an estimated return period of 80 years. In the January 1982 floods, 78 domestic properties and 64 industrial and commercial premises were inundated for two or three days. As a result of cleaning-up operations, day-to-day commercial and domestic routines were affected for considerably longer than that. I recall the great concern of my constituents for months, indeed years, after that flooding, and the special help of the lord mayor of York's alleviation plan to assist individual constituents.
Traffic in the flooded area was totally disrupted and, as the floods affected the inner ring road, the effects of the disruption were felt over a much wider area. Inevitably, the flooding severely limited the deployment of the services used in the emergency and diverted them from their normal duties. Those services were stretched to their limit.
The feasibility study which the Yorkshire water authority commissioned following the 1982 floods recommended, as the preferred solution, the construction of a flood barrier in the River Foss, with a pump station. It has the merit that because the Foss level can be controlled by pumping the run-off from the Foss catchment while the barrier is closed, the operation of the storm sewer and beck overflows will not be inhibited by high River Foss levels, as they would have been under the alternative proposals which were then considered. The estimated cost of the recommended solution was also the lowest of those investigated.
The feasibility study reported that the proposed barrier should be sited downstream of the Castle Mills bridge so that no modification of existing upstream defences would be necessary, and gave as the recommended gate location a position immediately upstream of Blue bridge. It further stated that the most appropriate type of barrier would be a turn-over lift gate, its detailed appearance being subject to approval by York city council as the planning authority.
793 As for the pumping station, the feasibility study mentioned that a substantial building would be required if conventional axial flow vertically-mounted land drainage pumps were used and that an underground pumping station would, therefore, be preferable. While giving details of such an arrangement of an underground pumping station midway between Blue bridge and Castle Mills bridge, the feasibility study stated: the layout and location of this station remain flexible at present being the subject of both technical and planning considerations. Hon. Members will understand if, at this point in my remarks, I slake my thirst with some Yorkshire water authority produce.
In addition to the barrier and pumping station, the Bill provides for a number of necessary additional works. These are a flood protection wall and access road, works Nos. 3 and 4, running north from the pumping station; a new control structure with sluice gate, work No. 5, in substitution for the existing control structure at Castle Mills lock; a new pipe, work No. 6, in substitution for an existing pipe to take waters in that pipe above the barrier; the raising of Tower street, work No. 7; and a new car park access and adjacent flood wall, works Nos. 8 and 9, on St. George's field.
The principal reason why Yorkshire water authority cannot rely on existing general powers to implement the scheme is that it involves interference with navigation. No general powers are available for this purpose and, accordingly, it is necessary in each case to obtain the requisite powers by way of private legislation. Recent examples are the Severn-Trent Water Authority Act 1983 in respect of flood prevention in the valley of the River Soar, and the Southern Water Authority Act 1982, which was for a new control structure with lock gates on the River Rother.
In addition, water authorities' general powers are insufficient or of doubtful application in a number of detailed respects. The necessary powers proposed in the Bill for the management and operation of the barrier and pumping station are an example, general powers not being available for the purpose. Also, with a scheme of this nature, the inclusion of all necessary powers in one Bill overcomes any difficulties that may be encountered in the interaction of the authority's several different general powers and can result in a considerable saving in time and expense in implementing a scheme.
Early in 1985 a number of local residents voiced objections concerning the environmental impact of the proposed works, particularly in respect of the effect on the Georgian riverside promenade known as New Walk terrace, and it became apparent that there was genuine concern over that. In the light of the objections then raised, I organised a public local meeting. Because of the views then expressed, the water authority has agreed to propose amendments in Committee to provide for the proposed barrier and pumping station to be relocated within the limits of the deviation for those works and away from New Walk.
It is understood that the proposed modifications meet the objections that have been raised, and the water authority has now applied and obtained planning permission for the revised scheme. As proposed to be modified, the scheme remains consistent with the recommendations of the feasibility study commissioned by the water authority.
794 The miscellaneous general powers that are proposed are contained in part IV of the Bill. The majority of these reflect powers conferred on other water authorities in recent years by local Acts, and this part of the Bill in particular was the subject of detailed prior consultation with the relevant Government Departments.
Parts I, II, IV and V concern the flood relief scheme, and I shall outline the principal provisions. Part II contains the necessary powers for land acquisition, and these provisions are, in the main, well precedented. Clause 14 contains the description of the works to be authorised. with powers for ancillary works contained in clause 15, and a general power in clause 16 to deviate within the limits shown on the plans.
Clause 17 provides for alterations in paths likely to be affected, and clauses 18 to 20 contain the common additional provisions regarding interference with highways generally. Clauses 21 to 27 provide various necessary powers for operations in and the control of the rivers affected and, again, are closely based on precedent, the power to give directions under clause 24 to vessels being modelled on similar provisions conferred on harbour authorities.
Clause 28 ensures that the specific powers are without prejudice to the application of the authority's general powers, and that is a common provision in measures of this character. Clauses 29 to 33 provide for the manner in which the barrier, pumping station and sluice gate may be operated, and provide penalties for interference with them. The restrictions upon the use of the barrier and pumping station are necessary in the interests of navigation.
Clause 34 provides, as necessary, that restrictions contained in existing local legislation affecting the Rivers Ouse and Foss do not operate to prevent the application of the powers in the Bill.
Part V contains general and administrative provisions including, in clause 47, the requisite adaptation of the Land Drainage Act 1976 to enable central Government grants to be available and the limitation, in clause 50, of the deemed planning permission available under the general development order. Clause 50 and a number of other clauses bearing on the city council's functions are likely to be subject to restrictive amendments to be agreed with the council in due course. Amendments to effect the proposed alteration of works are required to a number of clauses, and most notably clause 14, in which the description of work needs to be modified to accord with the revised scheme. In addition. the revised scheme calls for restrictive limits of deviation for the altered works, the deletion of references to the towing path on the east bank of the River Ouse and to New Walk in clause 17 and the omission of most other references to the River Ouse, which, in the main, will no longer be affected. All the requisite amendments for the revised scheme will be proposed by the promoters in Committee.
The miscellaneous clauses are contained in part IV and have been the subject of prior consultation with relevant Departments, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I shall refer to Calderdale and its sewage works. The instruction in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) is as follows: After Second Reading of the Yorkshire Water Authority Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend Clause 36 to require the Promoters to provide and 795 maintain a sludge main which will take out of Calderdale the sludge now tipped, treated or dried at the Low fields site and at the Press House at North Dean. It is apparent from the steps that I have outlined and from the letters to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that the authority is committed to solving the problem of odour and fly nuisance from its sewage works at North Dean and Lowfields as a matter of urgency. In the short term, the authority is treating the sludge at the North Dean works with lime to reduce smells and has found an alternative site to Lowfields to which the sludge can be taken. A planning application has been submitted for this site. It is a remote and disused reservoir named Coldacre, which could quickly be brought into use once permission is given.

§ Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)
The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that a planning application has been submitted. What is his estimate of the likelihood of that application being approved? I represent an adjoining constituency which would be affected by the application, if granted. It is my understanding that the chances of its being granted are nil.

§ Mr. Gregory
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I cannot presume upon the planning decisions of local authorities. I was seeking to deal with the principle behind the instruction of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for a little longer, I may be able to throw some more light on the issue.
If planning permission is refused, further attempts will be made to find an alternative site. Given the topography of Calderdale, that may be difficult.
The proposed instruction is mandatory and would require clause 36 to be amended to oblige the authority to make a pipeline to take the sludge out of Calderdale. The instruction does not state where the sludge main is to go and, in the absence of an alternative site being available, this presents a difficulty. Some of the sludge might not be capable of being transported by a sludge main. Apart from these practical difficulties, and the absence of available finance to implement the instruction, the passage of the instruction would pre-empt the studies that are now being undertaken by the Yorkshire water authority and would preclude the adoption of the best solution identified by those studies.
The passage of the instruction would present the water authority with real difficulties in continuing the promotion of the Bill. If the authority—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the instruction is out of order and that he must not go into detail.

§ Mr. Gregory
I shall not talk further about the instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to your kindness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that if necessary I can respond to any hon. Members who subsequently direct their remarks to the instruction.
I have set out the basis of the Bill, and it remains to be said that the people of York have been waiting for decades for such a measure and have suffered quite considerably in the process. I hope that the Bill will have the support of the House.

796 7.16 pm

§ Mr. Roy Galley (Halifax)
The Bill does not relate solely to flood prevention in York, as it contains a variety of wide-ranging general powers which the Yorkshire water authority is seeking from Parliament.
My original concern stemmed from these accretions to the already extensive powers of the authority. However, I was persuaded eventually that the powers were largely necessary and that there was considerable precedent for them.
The Bill is presented at a time when there are sewage disposal and treatment problems in the Halifax area and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). The Calderdale area is served by a complex of sewage works at Salterhebble, Copley and North Dean. These extensive developments are in close proximity to residential property and the odour nuisance has been to varying degrees a problem in the area for decades.
When the problems came to the fore in the mid-1970s the odours were attributed to the manufacture of humus-based products. A series of measures was taken to mask the odours such as the spraying of scented chemicals. However, that did not overcome the problem. The production of the humus was then discontinued, but that did not result in a significant reduction or elimination of the odours.
The smells have continued and they are more than the slightly earthy smells which one would usually associate with any sewage treatment operation. The difficulties that arose in 1983 were exacerbated by the decision of the water authority to compost in the area the sludge which is the end product of the treatment process. A pressed cake is produced at the press house at the North Dean works. This is currently transferred for composting to another site at Lowfields, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley. This gives rise to further foul odours and considerable problems of fly infestation in an area which is very near to residential areas.
Over the years the water authority has sought to reduce the odours by a variety of measures, and principally by the installation of new machinery for the addition of lime to the sludge. However, smells continue.
There have been further plans, which I hope will be implemented shortly, to introduce an oxygen injection process at the Copley plant. This may help, but no one can be sure that it will solve the problem. As a result of this history of very serious problems which have continued for a long time, and which have been of great concern to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley and I decided that our constituents had suffered from these problems for too long. I therefore added to the Bill an instruction which would mean taking sludge from the area of Calderdale. I hope that it is appropriate to explain the reasoning behind it, although the instruction is out of order.
The objective is to take the sludge by a sludge main to a more appropriate location where the sludge can be properly treated. The Yorkshire water authority's powers in respect of sludge mains are set out fully in clause 36. After detailed discussion with the authority, I accept that the process of removing sludge from the area by means of a sludge main is only one of the options available for dealing with a serious sewerage problem. The options 797 include an entirely new processing method and covering in parts of the sewage works. These options could be more effective. It seems reasonable to allow the water authority to consider the various options and details and produce a strategy for dealing with the problem.
What is vitally important is that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley know that the studies will be completed in a relatively short time and that the solution will be implemented on a priority basis. They cannot be expected to suffer for a further few more decades as they have suffered in the past.
Accordingly, on 17 June, the deputy chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, Mr. J. P. Coverdale, who has been extremely helpful to me and to my hon. Friends throughout the discussions, wrote to me. His letter is headed: Calderdale Sewage Disposal Strategy including Halifax and Lowfields. It says: The Authority recognises that a long-term solution to the problem of odours and fly nuisance from its sewage works in the Calder Valley must be found urgently and is now preparing a sludge strategy and carrying out local studies of sewage works in the Calder Valley which will be completed within 12 months. Immediately after completion the preferred solutions will be considered by the Authority and implemented on a priority basis as soon as reasonably practicable. It is important that these points are recorded. On that basis, one would hope that future officials of the Yorkshire water authority would not be able to gainsay what are regarded by me and my constituents as binding commitments on the part of the authority—commitments that a way will be found to solve the problem, that the solution will be implemented quickly and that we in Halifax and Calder Valley can look forward confidently to the removal of this nuisance.
It has never been my intention to impede flood prevention work in York, although some, for their own devious reasons, have sought to distort and misrepresent the situation. Having received adequate assurances from the Yorkshire water authority about sewage disposal and treatment in Calderdale, I shall not oppose the Bill.

7.22 pm

§ Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)
I support the Second Reading because it is important to the people of York in particular and Yorkshire in general that progress by the Yorkshire water authority in alleviating flooding in York be allowed to continue. It is also important to ensure that the provisions of former water undertakings be continued, and the water authority be given the authority of the past local water boards to continue certain protections and services for the people of Yorkshire. There is much that I do not agree with in what the Yorkshire water authority does, but on this occasion I believe that we should support Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) spoke about the future development of the Calderdale area. It is important to inform the House that a great deal of energy and expense has been put into the Calderdale area by the Yorkshire water authority to alleviate the difficulties suffered by the constituents of the hon. Member for Halifax. The hon. Gentleman accepted that in what he said about the letter from the deputy chairman of the Yorkshire water authority. A great deal of concern about alleviating the difficulties of the people in Calderdale has been 798 expressed. I hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage, as it will ensure that we do not have the repercussions from flooding in York that we have had over decades.
Some of the areas that are flooded suffer badly. The people who have to put up with this disturbance should be given an assurance by the House that every effort will be made to help the Yorkshire water authority to prevent that flooding. As the hon. Member for Halifax will not challenge the Bill, I ask the House to give the Bill its blessing so that we can get the business required by the Yorkshire water authority through. It can then get on with the job of alleviating the flooding and providing the necessary services for Yorkshire.

7.25 pm

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
I support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I do not want the House to interfere with what the Yorkshire water authority does. I am not concerned with the Calderdale area, although I respect the concern of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). However, I am concerned that the Yorkshire water authority should not find its tasks made more difficult because of anything that the House has done. We should support the authority in its tasks of providing a decent water supply and adequate sewage treatment in Yorkshire.
I am particularly concerned about sewage provision and water supply in Rawmarsh in my constituency. I have been satisfied in correspondence with the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority in the past few weeks that it has plans to deal fairly soon with these problems. I do not wish the problems to be exacerbated by any delay for which the House could be held responsible. I hope that, as further retrenchment appears attractive to the Treasury, there will be no discouragement of the water authority from fulfilling the plans about which we have been informed in the past few weeks.
I trust that the Government will not merely accept and facilitate the Bill but will make sure that the water authority lacks neither resources nor the approvals necessary to maintain adequate sewage provision, a decent water supply and proper progress in cleaning water courses and rivers in our region.

7.27 pm

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave)
The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the Yorkshire water authority. My Department has no outstanding points on the Bill and it is acceptable to us. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very much aware of the Bill and is content with its proposals. The flood prevention scheme will benefit art urban area and is needed to protect part of York from flooding.
It may be helpful to the House if I touch on the local issue of the sewage works in Halifax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) described in more detail than I am aware of.
Water authorities discuss their plans with sponsor Departments—the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and Ministers take account of their needs when setting the financial parameters within which they operate, and this point was well taken by the hon. Member for Wentworth 799 (Mr. Hardy). However, within the limits it is for the authority to set out reasonable priorities and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Yorkshire water authority is doing so.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) have demonstrated how constituency interests can be properly advanced. On behalf of his constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for York initially made some criticisms of the plans. In consultation with the water authority, he got the plans made better and I congratulate him on that.
Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, who was representing the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) as well, has, in discussions with the water authority, secured promises from it that he was generous enough to accept.
On that basis, the Government recomend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way into Committee, where its provisions can be considered in detail.

§ Question put and agreed to.

§ Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

cc800-8