Water Requirements (Planning) Bill (Hansard, 19 April 1991)

§ Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a conservation measure. We live in a conservation-minded age, and the Bill would have the effect of ensuring both the conservation and preservation of our water supplies. As the poet sang: Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my Song. But "sweet Thames" would not run softly, let alone the song, if efforts were not being made constantly to keep the great river in order. Surprisingly few people realise the extent to which the world-famous river is used merely as a conduit to bring water from hundreds of miles away to our great capital city.
My Bill would require a person seeking planning permission for a new building to send an estimate of the annual water requirement to the area water company at the same time as submitting the application for planning permission to the planning authority. I have secured all-party support for my Bill.
There are two objectives behind the requirement. First, water supply companies should be able to plan ahead. If they have warning of planning applications, they will know what level of building activity there will be in future and how much water they will be called upon to supply. Secondly, we must try to instil a "conservation mind" into those who make applications for planning permission. If the Bill is enacted, applicants will have to contact the local water authority and open a channel of communication between themselves and the authority. In that way, the authority will be able to say, "If you arrange the water supply in this way, a way that is different from that which you are intending, you will be able to save perhaps 25 per cent. of the amount of water that it is estimated will be consumed under the original requirements."

§ Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford)
There is a requirement in my hon. Friend's Bill for a certificate to be submitted which shows that an estimate has been made of the quantity of water that will be used. However, there is no requirement for the water authority to act in any way. The suggestion that the authority would become involved in the planning of the extension seems to be a good, but perhaps a pious, hope.

§ Mr. Summerson
I trust that it would be both a good and a pious hope. It would open a channel of communication. If time permits, I shall read some of the responses that I have had from water authorities.
The demand for public water supplies has increased by 70 per cent. over the past 30 years. That is a significant pointer to an increasingly affluent, and effluent, society. We all tend to forget that what goes into a building must also go out. It is not only the supply of water to a premises that a water authority must bear in mind; it must also treat the used water that comes out the other end.

§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)
Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? He referred to water authorities, but I was under the impression that since privatisation there are only water companies. There is only one authority—the National Rivers Authority. It may 738 have been a slip of the tongue, but if there is indeed some other water authority, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me.

§ Mr. Summerson
I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest; I meant water plcs. I should have said plc, especially as it has one less syllable than authority, and time is short.
We should ask ourselves about the uses of water. We take it for granted that when we turn on the tap, water will come from it. We use water for washing cars, watering the garden and washing clothes. Some people even drink it. It is used in various domestic facilities—for example, every time that we use the lavatory it takes two gallons of water to flush it. A bath takes 18 gallons; a washing machine cycle takes 25 gallons; and a hosepipe or sprinkler can use 220 gallons an hour. In manufacturing industry, it takes one gallon of water to produce a pint of beer. I hope that no one asks me how that comes about; it is a figure that I have been given. It takes 1,000 gallons of water to produce one tonne of steel, and it takes 6,600 gallons to manufacture one motor car. In the Thames Water area alone, 600 million gallons of water are used every day. That is equivalent to the total volume of the Albert hall being emptied and refilled every 75 minutes. That gives us some idea of how much water is being used.
Thames Water is considering building a new reservoir in Oxfordshire to supply the rapidly expanding towns in the Thames valley, such as Witney and Swindon, and to ensure supplies of water to London. The idea is to send water down the Thames to London, where it will be stored in reservoirs. That is all part of a continuing effort, going back many years. I remember my days as a land agent, in the early 1970s, when I helped to look after a farm on the chalk in Oxfordshire. In those days, Thames Water had what was known as its ground water scheme, where bores were drilled in the chalk and ground water was pumped out and sent down the Thames to arrive, eventually, in London.
The Bill states that anyone seeking planning permission for a new building has to send an estimate of the annual water requirement to the water plc. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I would seek to table amendments in Committee to state that that would not be a requirement for a single building. It would have to be a requirement for developments of a minimum size, perhaps 10 houses or flats, a factory of 5,000 sq ft. or an office building of perhaps 10,000 sq ft. Obviously it would be absurd if every time someone wanted to build on a conservatory or a bathroom, he had to send details to the water plc as it would certainly swamp it in paper.
I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) that I would quote comments by various water plcs and here we go. South West Water says: There is no doubt of the importance of making our customers aware of the cost and value of the water required to support their proposals, and any advance information which can be provided to the water companies is extremely useful for planning purposes. North West Water stated: It is helpful for customers and potential customers to be more aware of their requirements for water and, of course, we are always keen to know as soon as possible of potential new demand for our services. Severn Trent Water stated: It is a very good idea"— I hope that my hon. Friend is listening— 739 and should be extended not only to the erection of a building, but to any change or alteration in any building that requires planning permission.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
I am certainly listening to my hon. Friend; I am merely disagreeing with him. For example, how is anyone who builds a new factory unit to know who will occupy it? If it is occupied by a paper-making industry, it will use an incredible amount of water as opposed to some other industries. One has no idea what sort of tenant will occupy the new building. Will these estimates be of any use and will they have any meaning at all?

§ Mr. Summerson
When most people build a factory they know perfectly well what use it will be put to. As I said, channels of communication will already have been opened between the developer and the water plc and I hope that they will both make use of it.
Southern Water stated: It would be of assistance if your proposals could be extended so that notification is given also to the sewerage undertaker. Welsh Water said: We have long felt that any planning applications should be formally referred to ourselves for all the obvious reasons. Northumbria Water stated: Consultation with water undertakers has become more tenuous as we are no longer statutory consultees under the Town and Country Planning legislation. One of the main reasons why I have introduced the Bill is that there are many rivers throughout the country which are in danger of drying up altogether, due to use and abstraction. I make no apology for it, but I shall read out the names of those rivers. In the Anglian region; they are the River Hiz, the Hoffer brook, the River Slea, the Redgrave and Lopham fen site of special scientific interest, the River Glen, the East Rushton SSSI, the river Mun, the River Deben, and Hollesley-Black ditch.
In the north-west area, there is the River Lowther. In Severn-Trent, there are Dover beck, the River Worfe, Battlesfield brook, Rufford lake, Leomansley brook and Black brook (Tamworth).
740 In the Southern area, there are the River Darent, Wallop brook, the River Little Stour, the River Nailbourne, St. Mary Bourne, the River Meon, and River Hamble.
In the Welsh area there are the Frome, the Garren, the Gamber, the Monnow, the Alun, the Afon Clywedog, and Cefni reservoir.
In the Thames area there are the Misbourne, the Pang, the Ver, the Wey, Letcombe brook, the Upper Kennet, the Thames Head, the Ampney, the Churn, the Coln and the Windrush.
In Yorkshire, there are the Derwent and the Wharfe, and in Wessex the River Piddle, the Allen and the Wey. All those rivers are in danger of drying up.
As I said at the outset, my Bill is a conservation measure, and I hope for the sake of the rivers that I have mentioned that the House will give it a Second Reading.

§ Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford)
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is to be congratulated on presenting the Bill, and also on being the nicest of men—as I had the honour to be able to say in his constituency as recently as Wednesday. As we have already heard, he is also the most romantic of men: I felt that the opening lines of the poem with which he began his speech set it in context in an excellent fashion.
None the less, I have some reservations about the Bill —about its enforceability, for example. My hon. Friend suggests that we should all put in estimates of how much water we use. I have no idea—