The changing governance of water

Launched in April, the Government’s Plan for Water could be an opportunity for a step-change in how water resources and the water environment are protected and managed in an integrated way. Central to this ambition is the idea of integrated catchment management plans led by local partnerships. In this blog, I share some insights from a handful of local authorities on the governance of water, and how it needs to evolve, and reflect on what this might mean for planning. At this point I think its important for me to be honest and say that I am still relatively new to most things water-related so please bear with me as I take you on my recent journey.

Conversations with Defra
In PAS, we’re always on the look-out for opportunities to simplify and streamline the many demands on local authorities in ways which maximise public benefits and make better use of limited resources. For example, through our nutrient neutrality project, we recognise the potential of strategic, catchment-scale partnerships to deliver long-term improvements to the water environment. We are supporting local authorities to respond to the implications of poor water quality for development and planning and we hope this collective learning will help them to respond to emerging and future challenges, such as concerns relating to water resources and development in parts of the south-east.

We are also mindful that, whilst water is a very complex area of policy and delivery in and of itself, it is also cross-cutting. For local authorities this requires an understanding of how the water agenda relates to other corporate and community priorities, for example, managing the risk of flooding and responding to climate change. 

So, when Defra asked us for our views on catchment plans as part of a stakeholder engagement exercise, we jumped at the opportunity to share our own insights and offered to convene a group of local authorities for Defra to talk to. We’re always happy to represent the views of local authorities but this was one of those occasions where we felt it was particularly important for Government to hear direct form the horse’s mouth. After all, local authorities are at the sharp end of implementing Government policy and regulation, so they know what works and what needs to change. More on this later.

What are catchment plans and why are they relevant?
The first part of this question sounds quite straight-forward but as I often find when I start digging deeper into areas of policy that I have limited knowledge of, its all a bit mysterious and complicated, and its only when you speak to people who have been immersed in it for years that you begin to understand why. I’ve heard people talk about catchment management planning and catchment plans for years, without ever really getting into the detail. I’ve also heard of drainage and wastewater management plans, nutrient management plans, water resource management plans, river basin management plans, surface water management plans, and flood risk management plans, among others. I am also aware of the Catchment Based Approach (CaBA) which we heard about in one of the early nutrient neutrality webinars. CaBA is about stakeholders working collaboratively at a river catchment scale to deliver a range of social, economic, and environmental benefits, supported by a catchment plan.

Defra’s Plan for Water is built around an integrated catchment approach to managing the whole water system. Catchment management plans will be supported by new funding for catchment groups and partnerships and a streamlined policy and legal framework to deliver clean and plentiful water. Alongside this, the Government has committed to streamlining the current framework of plan and strategies for water. This is important because it means that in the next few years there will be changes to the governance of water, at national, sub-national, and local levels, which in turn will present new challenges and opportunities for all stakeholders, including local authorities.

What has this got to do with land use planning?
Water constrains land use and development in lots of different ways, for example, increased design and construction costs to mitigate flood risk, impacts on habitats sites and a lack of available mitigation solutions, limitations on water supply and the need for water efficiency measures, inadequate wastewater infrastructure etc. The job of the planning system is to address these constraints through policies and decision making on the use of land. Of course, there is a wealth of policy guidance for planners to consider: the NPPF requires planning policies and decisions to make provision for water supply, wastewater, and flood risk management; prevent unacceptable levels of water pollution; and where possible, improve water quality; Planning Policy Guidance notes provide a layer of detail on a wide range of policy matters concerning the management of water including flood risk and coastal change; climate change; natural environment; SEA/SA/EIA; water supply, wastewater, and water quality. 

With my rather simplistic view of planning, I have tended to characterise the water ‘problem’ in my head as ‘too much, too little, or too dirty’. That’s not to say that I think the nature of the problem is simple or that it is easy to resolve – blatantly it isn’t. I sometimes quip that nutrient neutrality is harder than rocket science (I know it’s not really) but having listened to local authority practitioners talk about their experience of the water agenda, it makes nutrient neutrality seem like a doddle (again, I know it isn’t really). 

Before hosting the local authority sessions with Defra, I did what any self-respecting planner would do – I did a quick crash-course of my own, involving an afternoon of reading on the internet and drawing lots of blobs and arrows on a big piece of paper, in a vain attempt to make sense of all the different pieces of the jigsaw. To be honest, it’s a work in progress and I will share it in a future blog, but for now it is helping me to see this as a systems problem which requires a whole-system solution.

Greater Manchester partners are on the road towards integrated water management (see below for a link to their work) and this infographic illustrates how they are thinking about governance and building a strong partnership over time. Its a really simple way of setting out what is a very complex activity – and its way better looking than my scribbles!

So, are catchment plans a key part of the solution?
In July we convened two sessions for local authority officers to talk to Defra about their experience of catchment management plans, in particular, what’s working well/not so well, and what governance and funding is needed to drive forward a more integrated approach. We invited a range of people from a cross section of combined, unitary and district authorities, principally those involved in managing water and flood risk, planning, and infrastructure. Several themes emerged from these discussions:

• Integrated Catchment Management Plans don’t really exist so there aren’t many examples to learn from. There are already lots of plans and strategies for water doing different but complementary things, operating at different scales. There are also lots of catchment groups and partnerships doing good work. But this is not the same thing. River Basin Management Plans are probably the closest things to catchment management plans currently. 
• Despite the many catchment groups and partnerships that exist, the biggest challenge is implementation and delivery. There are some good examples where local authorities are collaborating with private and public partners across boundaries to do the right thing at the right scale. For example, Smarter Water Catchments is a pilot initiative led and funded by Thames Water in partnership with key stakeholders – it is based on the idea of prevention rather than end of pipe solutions; in Greater Manchester, the Combined Authority, Environment Agency and United Utilities are working together to develop an Integrated Water Catchment Plan; and the Greater London Authority has recently produced an Integrated Water Strategy for the Lee Valley, and is working with GMCA to capture best practice and learn from each other. 
• Whilst the effort going into collaboration and engagement is very welcome, stakeholders talk in different languages, have competing priorities, and want different benefits. Without consulting and agreeing a broad set out of outcomes at the beginning, some partners may be reluctant to come to the table and there will often be winners and losers.
• Funding is critical and catchment planning works best where the water companies are involved. A lot of existing catchment working is based around WFD objectives but unless its in the WINEP, the water companies are less likely to engage and the activities are likely to be relatively small scale. The objectives and outcomes of the WINEP need to be integrated across other policy objectives and knit together other relevant plans and funding sources including nature recovery, biodiversity net gain, ELMS etc.
• There is a lot continuing to happen in this space, which will need knitting together to ensure effective integration of policy objectives. For example, a recent NIC study on reducing the risk of surface flooding, commissioned by HM Treasury, highlights pressures from climate change and new development, and recommends joint strategies, devolved funding and implementing schedule 3 (SuDs) for new development. 
• The scale of existing catchment planning and partnerships is highly variable. Most are small scale, reactive to issues, and lack funding. Although there is recognition that defining appropriate boundaries for catchment plans is difficult, there is nevertheless a clear need for catchment plans to be scaled up to a much bigger geography with clear ownership, leadership, delivery, funding, and democratic accountability. 
• In terms of governance, there needs to be consideration of what weight catchment plans would have, where they fit in the hierarchy of other plans and strategies, including Local Nature Recovery Strategies, and whether new governance structures are required at an appropriate spatial scale.
• Alongside governance, big data is critical, to ensure that the right priorities and solutions are identified to deliver the required outcomes and ensure that money is directed towards preventative solutions that deliver multiple benefits. Natural Capital evidence and approaches can help to remove barriers which limit investment in nature based solutions are a particularly important source of data.

What does this mean for local planning authorities?
I think there is cautious optimism that catchment plans will make a positive difference in terms of the planning process and delivering sustainable, place-based outcomes. As always, there will be opportunities and risks but at this stage I would like to think that the pros outweigh the cons. Below are some of the main ones which came up during the discussions.

The pros…

• clearer leadership, governance, and coordination at a catchment level will set out the key issues and priorities for action
• more collaborative working between public, private and third sectors to ensure priorities and plans are integrated and delivering multiple benefits
• a better understanding of how the framework of policies, plans and strategies should be interpreted in the context of planning; more outcome-focussed and integrated with other relevant plans and strategies e.g., Local Nature Recovery Strategies
• better access to data and evidence will help planners to understand what they should be trying to achieve in an area where development is planned/taking place
• increased funding and blending sources of finance for catchment management plans will support delivery of planning policies and decisions, including developer contributions to improve grey and green solutions

The cons…

• potentially another layer of complexity to an area of policy which needs to be simplified and streamlined
• more consultation, engagement and collaboration for local authorities takes more time, money and expertise
• complicated spatial scales of water catchments and political/administrative boundaries
• rapidly evolving water agenda is a challenge for local authorities to stay up to date with  

What next?
Over the summer, Defra is aiming to consolidate the information and evidence from an extensive programme of stakeholder engagement. They have indicated that they would like to keep the communication channels open and potentially test further thinking with a group of local authorities – which we have offered to convene and support. This is a complex and evolving policy agenda and we will do our best to keep LPAs informed as things progress, whether that be through events, case studies, our newsletter, or blogs such as this.

Finally, I would like to say a big thank you to all the individuals who gave their time to share their insights and perspectives in such an open and constructive way. I have no doubt that Defra will have learnt a lot from talking to you, as did I.