Thames water making a mockery of the system again

Drinking water shortage in decade without new reservoirs, minister says​


It's a dramatic, clickbait and scaremongering headline, but it does state that no reservoir has been completed since 1992, just after Water was privatised.

Another reason the directors should be prosecuted. We are a nation with plenty of rainfall, an island surrounded by water, yet no investment since privatisation to collect it.
 
The_Tiler said:

Drinking water shortage in decade without new reservoirs, minister says​


It's a dramatic, clickbait and scaremongering headline, but it does state that no reservoir has been completed since 1992, just after Water was privatised.

Another reason the directors should be prosecuted. We are a nation with plenty of rainfall, an island surrounded by water, yet no investment since privatisation to collect it.
Click to expand...
Not an excuse for the water companies but there have been loads which have tried for planning and they all get knocked back by planning or tied in knots by NIMBY's, or local MP's who get in the way.

I think Labour have already cancelled all the restrictions on two of them, and basically told all the objections to FO.

Planning is a nightmare in the UK, we look for reasons to not do things, rather than to do them, and nobody really has been looking at things from a wider or national point of view. Need to start cutting all the red tape.
 
The_Tiler said:
t's a dramatic, clickbait and scaremongering headline, but it does state that no reservoir has been completed since 1992, just after Water was privatised.
Click to expand...
It is a pet hate but what they mean is an 'impounding reservoir' ie a dam across a river hasn't been built, as there have been lots of reservoirs built in the last 30 years generally of the 'non-impounding service reservoir' type so filled by pumps & contain treated drinking water, including one I worked on within the region:
1748533698115.png
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

Unearthing history at 'prehistoric Glastonbury'

STONE Age Britons from across the North-East flocked to a prehistoric "Glastonbury festival" marked by mysterious rituals, a major…
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk www.thenorthernecho.co.uk
 
Andy_W said:
Not an excuse for the water companies but there have been loads which have tried for planning and they all get knocked back by planning or tied in knots by NIMBY's, or local MP's who get in the way.

I think Labour have already cancelled all the restrictions on two of them, and basically told all the objections to FO.

Planning is a nightmare in the UK, we look for reasons to not do things, rather than to do them, and nobody really has been looking at things from a wider or national point of view. Need to start cutting all the red tape.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Thousands of people can say no but not one who can say yes.
 
thewanderer said:
Indeed. Thousands of people can say no but not one who can say yes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, good point, never thought about it like that.

It's like any planning application I suppose. You might have neighbours either side, where you want an extension, one you might be pally with and the other not so much. One might not disapprove or might support you with it (but not say that to the council), and the other bloke may kick off. The council look at that like it's 100% negative, it's daft.

Do a survey and ask the 1m people downstream if they want to have a water supply in 10 years, then when they get the 10 NIMBY's complaining, say "you're outvoted 1m to 10, unlucky, move somewhere else if you don't like it". Plus, your "views out your window" are not worth 1% of one persons drinking water.

At least the PM can step in and override it (like he has with some), but it shouldn't need to be this way. For almost any infrastructure the precedent should be to build whatever is most cost effective, and what is necessary for life and the economy. They should charge a small fee to make an objection or to sign onto one, far too many people only thinking of themselves.
 
Andy_W said:
Yeah, good point, never thought about it like that.

It's like any planning application I suppose. You might have neighbours either side, where you want an extension, one you might be pally with and the other not so much. One might not disapprove or might support you with it (but not say that to the council), and the other bloke may kick off. The council look at that like it's 100% negative, it's daft.

Do a survey and ask the 1m people downstream if they want to have a water supply in 10 years, then when they get the 10 NIMBY's complaining, say "you're outvoted 1m to 10, unlucky, move somewhere else if you don't like it". Plus, your "views out your window" are not worth 1% of one persons drinking water.

At least the PM can step in and override it (like he has with some), but it shouldn't need to be this way. For almost any infrastructure the precedent should be to build whatever is most cost effective, and what is necessary for life and the economy. They should charge a small fee to make an objection or to sign onto one, far too many people only thinking of themselves.
Click to expand...
So how do you move if your house has basically become worthless because they have built/are about to build say a water treatment plant close to your house which will potentially have a lingering smell, disruption to view, noise pollution etc? You might have only 10 complaints but might wholly genuine reasons to not build something.
 
bgdtmm said:
So how do you move if your house has basically become worthless because they have built/are about to build say a water treatment plant close to your house which will potentially have a lingering smell, disruption to view, noise pollution etc? You might have only 10 complaints but might wholly genuine reasons to not build something.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but national infrastructure is a much greater priority than single houses, or 10 complaints, this line of thinking is what holds us back. A water treatment plant is massive, they're never going to have the room for this close to loads of properties, and the land near those properties should be earmarked for additional housing anyway.

There are also mechanisms to deal with smell and noise etc, without going OTT.

Also, yeah if you put a treatment plant near a house in the country it might decrease it's value but it won't be worthless, loads of people would still take that, with the treatment plant nearby. It probably wouldn't lose 20%, which isn't the end of the world, maybe compensate them with the loss of value?

The alternative if we don't build is houses not having any water or drainage which could be worth next to zero, or there is no more houses, so people don't have a house or prices for existing houses keep getting jacked up.

Another option is to buy up the most effected properties for FMV, and then either sell those on (for less) and the developer or taxpayer can take the hit, or you knock them down and free up the land for other development which isn't so sensitive to industry.

Also, basic planning by for things like this, by developers also largely covers this, they're not intentionally picking places close to peoples homes, they want to avoid this as building near people is a nightmare.

An answer to this could be for the developer to highlight what they want to build and the LA CPO's land on their behalf (in suitable locations), and sells it to them. Or they do a land swap, say a developer has a plot of land near a couple of houses, sure don't build the plant there, but that land gets handed over to the LA so they can sell to a housebuilder (or build their own), then the LA CPO some land further away for the developer to use unrestricted.

Force developers to build on land they have, or sell back to the LA for FMV, who can then sell the land to someone else, with the provision that they have a fixed completion date to finish the build (not just start).

Just not building isn't the answer, and the answer also isn't using land in terrible locations which massively drive up construction costs. We have loads of free land which has good access, which would have very limited impact on anyone, it's just tied up by landowners and farmers etc.
 
Andy_W said:
Sorry, but national infrastructure is a much greater priority than single houses, or 10 complaints, this line of thinking is what holds us back. A water treatment plant is massive, they're never going to have the room for this close to loads of properties, and the land near those properties should be earmarked for additional housing anyway.

There are also mechanisms to deal with smell and noise etc, without going OTT.

Also, yeah if you put a treatment plant near a house in the country it might decrease it's value but it won't be worthless, loads of people would still take that, with the treatment plant nearby. It probably wouldn't lose 20%, which isn't the end of the world, maybe compensate them with the loss of value?

The alternative if we don't build is houses not having any water or drainage which could be worth next to zero, or there is no more houses, so people don't have a house or prices for existing houses keep getting jacked up.

Another option is to buy up the most effected properties for FMV, and then either sell those on (for less) and the developer or taxpayer can take the hit, or you knock them down and free up the land for other development which isn't so sensitive to industry.

Also, basic planning by for things like this, by developers also largely covers this, they're not intentionally picking places close to peoples homes, they want to avoid this as building near people is a nightmare.

An answer to this could be for the developer to highlight what they want to build and the LA CPO's land on their behalf (in suitable locations), and sells it to them. Or they do a land swap, say a developer has a plot of land near a couple of houses, sure don't build the plant there, but that land gets handed over to the LA so they can sell to a housebuilder (or build their own), then the LA CPO some land further away for the developer to use unrestricted.

Force developers to build on land they have, or sell back to the LA for FMV, who can then sell the land to someone else, with the provision that they have a fixed completion date to finish the build (not just start).

Just not building isn't the answer, and the answer also isn't using land in terrible locations which massively drive up construction costs. We have loads of free land which has good access, which would have very limited impact on anyone, it's just tied up by landowners and farmers etc.
Click to expand...
Its not singular houses it affects multiples. If land near any property should be earmarked for for additional housing we would eventually end up with little to no greenbelt.

Are we to no longer have sleepy rural villages in the UK as land around those should be earmarked for expansion?

There are mechanisms your right but how effectively are they actually used..? The situation we are in now shows that holding companies to legal obligations doesn't happen and the mechanisms are ineffective. Companies would rather save ££££ and role the dice than understand their planning and permit obligations whilst the average person is made to suffer. Even if they are caught it can take years of legal wrangling to get them to act. Would you be happy to not be able to use your back garden due to a smell or not sleep properly at night due to noise? How are people supposed to sell these houses whilst this is going on as by law you have to inform the buyer of any outstanding issues with neighbours or you can be sued?

When we talk about compensation who would be on the hook for it..... the developer? the local authority for signing off the planning? central government as it is an infrastructure project? All those inevitably end up with Joe Public footing the bill as any developer would factor that into their price.

Look at how often we see houses flooded now due to being built on flood plains and poor drainage systems being installed. This along with how the becks, rivers and streams are no longer managed and maintained properly to ensure volumes and flow.

If you buy up those houses and knock them down how do you replace them? We don't build enough at the rate required as it stands.

I absolutely agree with you that we need to build and we need to build a lot to replace decades of underinvestment not just in water and housing by in many many sectors. But we need effective laws and guidelines that are effective and enforced stringently.
 
bgdtmm said:
Its not singular houses it affects multiples. If land near any property should be earmarked for for additional housing we would eventually end up with little to no greenbelt.

Are we to no longer have sleepy rural villages in the UK as land around those should be earmarked for expansion?

There are mechanisms your right but how effectively are they actually used..? The situation we are in now shows that holding companies to legal obligations doesn't happen and the mechanisms are ineffective. Companies would rather save ££££ and role the dice than understand their planning and permit obligations whilst the average person is made to suffer. Even if they are caught it can take years of legal wrangling to get them to act. Would you be happy to not be able to use your back garden due to a smell or not sleep properly at night due to noise? How are people supposed to sell these houses whilst this is going on as by law you have to inform the buyer of any outstanding issues with neighbours or you can be sued?

When we talk about compensation who would be on the hook for it..... the developer? the local authority for signing off the planning? central government as it is an infrastructure project? All those inevitably end up with Joe Public footing the bill as any developer would factor that into their price.

Look at how often we see houses flooded now due to being built on flood plains and poor drainage systems being installed. This along with how the becks, rivers and streams are no longer managed and maintained properly to ensure volumes and flow.

If you buy up those houses and knock them down how do you replace them? We don't build enough at the rate required as it stands.

I absolutely agree with you that we need to build and we need to build a lot to replace decades of underinvestment not just in water and housing by in many many sectors. But we need effective laws and guidelines that are effective and enforced stringently.
Click to expand...
No we wouldn't lose it, we need a lot of houses, but not that many.

Yeah, we would still have villages, I live in one, in a new build, it's great. There were loads of complaints before it was built though, took around 2 years longer to get planning than it should, it seems. It's funny though, as there has just been land sold in the field opposite and planning permission has gone in to build more, and someone on the estate took a survey round for everyone to sign to complain about the new development, it's laughable.
People living in new builds in a village, literally complaining about others getting that same opportunity. I didn't sign it, they can build as much as they want for all I care, there will still be countless fields around here.

We need to up our game, to get on land holders backs more. A lot of work goes into developments to get planning and meet it though, at extreme expense, I work with a lot of housebuilders on less disruptive techniques etc, it's not cheap.

I wouldn't be happy if things got significantly worse, of course not, but the bigger picture is more important I think. You need to crack a few eggs to make an omelette and if that means cracking my egg, then so be it. People still buy houses with issues, there are tons of people who move into new builds when the entire area is a construction site, and will be for the next 5 years or whatever. I think fair compensation could solve this, but just "not building" or making building 2x the cost due to hurdles isn't the answer.

Put the compensation on the developer, it's better if they pay £1m build costs + £1m compensation, rather than £2m build costs as there's £1m of silly hurdles or time delays in there. Or like I said before get the LA to CPO some other land which would be less hassle. CPO's aren't used enough.

Yeah, I live near a flood plane, but the drainage systems are built based on modelling which assumes worse storms and climate change etc. Houses get built on these flood plains as it's the only place they can get land to build on, they would rather be building on better land. Also building on these flood planes makes foundations, defences and drainage cost far higher to install.

Yeah, we need more builders and certainly more labour.

The planning laws, red tape and hoop jumping is ludicrous, it's the most frustrating thing about working in this sector. The daft thing is it often doesn't stop anything getting built it just means loads of costs on over spec, crazy additional design costs etc, and massively long drawn out programs which cost a fortune. It's largely all a complete waste of money, just to appease a few NIMBY's who won't even be happy in the end anyway.
 
Two years old but the sentiment remains
1753698828223.png

How the Govt review decided that the water companies being privately owned is not the issue is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top