David Reed

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. This is an issue on which I hope we can find cross-party consensus and bring about the meaningful and effective change that we and our constituents badly want to see in the water industry. I start with a case study from my constituency that illustrates the problematic nature of how the current planning framework operates in relation to water companies. Cranbrook is a rapidly growing new town in east Devon: the 2021 census recorded just 6,700 people, but the local council is proposing to grow the town to 8,000 homes, which will accommodate around 20,000 people. During the planning phase for the town, our local water company, South West Water, promised a dedicated sewage pumping station to treat waste locally and prevent the overloading of existing infrastructure. However, South West Water has since scrapped the proposed pumping station, and instead redirects Cranbrook’s waste six miles away to the Countess Wear sewage treatment works in Exeter. Countess Wear is already under pressure and suffers regular sewage spills into our beautiful River Exe. It does not take big brains to work out that, at Cranbrook’s projected growth rates, the current plan is unsustainable at best and dangerous at worst. If local politicians and pressure groups had known at the time that South West Water would not make good on its promise or be held accountable, I should imagine that objections to the town being built would have been louder and more persistent. As we all know, this Labour Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament, yet they have not adequately explained how they will ensure that infrastructure will keep pace with development. With multiple proposals for new housing in my constituency, as well as proposals for a new town—in addition to Cranbrook—I fear that the same avoidable mistake will happen to my home twice. For the record, I am not against house building, but I am against house building that is delivered without the corresponding infrastructure. The issue of water infrastructure planning has long been overlooked, yet it is crucial to ensuring that new housing developments do not lead to avoidable environmental and public health disasters. As we have heard, water companies are not statutory consultees in the planning process. Their role is limited to local plan development, meaning that they often engage far too late, once planning applications are well under way. This lack of early involvement leads to delays, unco-ordinated infrastructure and, ultimately, a failure of accountability when things go wrong. To offset that flaw in planning law, local councils are resorting to other mechanisms to force compliant behaviour from water companies. We have heard about Grampian conditions, which are designed to prevent development from proceeding until certain infrastructure requirements are met. However, they do not force water companies to deliver the necessary infrastructure. If a water company delays investment, a development can be stalled indefinitely —or, worse, proceed without proper infrastructure, leading to sewage overflows and environmental damage. We have heard about section 106 agreements, which are legally binding and require developers to fund infrastructure projects. However, water companies are not legally required to use these funds for local improvements, meaning that money intended for vital infrastructure could be diverted elsewhere.