Drainage concerns in Swallowfield
News: 15.09.26
Click here to download the article (PDF,0.54MB)
Clive Jones, MP raises concerns with Thames Water
Wokingham MP Clive Jones raises parish concerns over new development and sewage overload likely to result from this. Asks CEO of Thames Water to review their response to Vistry and WBC Planners in respect to development by Vistry on land west of Trowes Lane, Swallowfield.
At his recent surgery in Swallowfield, we explained to Clive the concerns we have about unsustainable development taking place in Swallowfield. In particular we discussed the current development just starting West of Trowes Lane (see application 230422), but also raised the applications under review East of Trowes Lane (application 252430) Sun Lane, Riseley (application 260774).
We are very pleased that Clive has clearly listened to and understood our concerns and has sent the attached letter to the CEO of Thames Water, asking him to review their agreement to consider condition 8 of the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision as met.
Background:
Planning application 230422 for 81 dwellings West of Trowes Lane in Swallowfield was approved at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector imposed a number of conditions, but here we are addressing only conditions 8 (and to an extent, condition 19).
Condition 8 reads:
“8. No development hereby permitted shall commence until details of the means of foul sewerage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.”
Condition 19 reads:
“19. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority demonstrating that the water network infrastructure has capacity to serve the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.”
The inspector expanded on these two conditions in Other Matters clause 44 and Planning Balance clause 63, which read as follows:
“44. I was told at the inquiry that there have been instances of foul sewer surcharging in the village. The reason is reportedly due to an excessive amount of surface water entering the foul sewerage system during times of heavy rain. The proposed development would have separate foul and surface water systems. While it would introduce an additional foul flow to the sewerage system, that would not include surface water and would not itself exacerbate matters during times of heavy rain. The onus lies with the drainage provider rather than the developer to resolve existing problems and where necessary increase capacity to accommodate demand. Therefore, where surcharging has happened, regrettable though it is, it does not amount to a reason to prevent the development taking place. I have imposed conditions allowing clarification and if necessary coordination between the development and any improvement works planned for the sewerage system.”
“63. I have imposed 2 conditions having regard to the consultation response from Thames Water and in a modified form with the agreement of the main parties which deal with foul drainage and water supply, the first being a pre commencement condition and the second a pre-occupation condition. These respond to concerns raised by local residents who have experienced deficiencies in the existing foul drainage system and water supply, and are concerned that the development might exacerbate those problems. While I understand the concerns, it is a matter for the utility provider rather than a developer to respond to existing problems in the sewerage and water networks and to provide additional capacity where required. The conditions are not intended to prevent the development being undertaken but to enable the Council to confirm that capacity is available in those systems or that suitable action is being taken by the utility provider to ensure that additional demand can be met.”
We hold that it is clear that the inspector is requiring Thames Water to confirm its ability to adequately remove the sewage from the site and from Swallowfield BEFORE WORK COMMENCES ON SITE. This has not been done: they have merely agreed to Vistry’s plan for connection to the existing inadequate system. WBC’s planning department has accepted this as meeting the condition, which we do not accept. They have also characterised condition 19 as “a back-stop2” which it clearly isn’t. Condition 8 applies to removal of sewage: condition 19 applies to provision of fresh water.
In clause 44, the inspector states that additional sewage in the pipes would not exacerbate surcharge problems. This is obviously untrue: if you put more sewage into an already inadequate system, then more sewage will come out in a surcharge situation. The mixture in the pipes is more concentrated.
We already have significant periods of the year where sewage has to be tankered away from the village. These new developments will increase these problems.