The Coopersknowe Residents Association

Transcription

1 The Coopersknowe Residents Association Secretary: Andy Kaye 21 Coopersknowe Crescent Galashiels Selkirkshire TD1 2DS Telephone: The Scottish Parliament TG.01 EDINBURGH EH99 1SP Parliament.uk Date: 23 February 2009 Your Ref: PE 1185 Our Ref: Roads and Drains etc Dear Jonathan CONSIDERATION OF PETITION PE 1185 Thank you for your forwarding the Climate Change and Water Industry Directorate s response to the points raised by John Wilson MSP (which I have not seen). Committee Members are distinctly unimpressed by this response. It would do Sir Humphrey proud but it is not what we expect from any civil servant to the Scottish Government. A rebuttal of Jim Murray s response is in Appendix 1 attached. We do request that the Petitions Committee take this matter further on the basis outlined below. We believe this to be a simple solution to a problem that can only get worse in the current economic climate and that our proposal is in everyone s best interests. Indeed when we first petitioned on this matter it was not for our members benefit. With the assistance of Waterwatch Scotland we were eventually able to resolve the matter of the adoption of the sewers for phases 1 & 2 of the development. However lightning can strike twice in the same place. A second developer has now gone out of business without the roads and sewers being completed or adopted for phase 3. Indeed the sewers situation is currently preventing the issue of a habitation certificate for an unsold house and an annual temporary habitation certificate has just been re-issued for another house that is occupied. Another home occupied for over a year never got an NHBC certificate or equivalent from the developer. This is the reality of the status quo Mr Murray appears to defend and we fear it will happen again and again in the current economic climate. Strictly speaking adoption has not been completed for phases 1 & 2 even now although most residents have been living here for between 5 and 6 years and paying for and using Scottish Water s services. However we have an assurance from Scottish Water that adoption is imminent and the comfort from them that the

2 residents in phases 1 & 2 will not be charged by Scottish Water for the work that has had to be done. What happens in phase 3 remains to be seen but we alerted Scottish Water and Scottish Borders Council to the situation. As a consequence the administrators have absolved themselves of any responsibility to complete the work (see letter attached). They have been guided to this conclusion by Scottish Water. This is a disgrace which we believe demands parliamentary action to give Scottish Water effective responsibility and powers in this area. As previously stated, we accept that the way forward as previously proposed by us via a bond (like a roads bond) is not appropriate. However we do believe the petition s process has identified a sensible and simple solution that we request is put to Scottish Water. In their response to the petition Scottish Water stated that In light of the experiences of the Petitioner Scottish Water is reviewing the options available under the current operating regime to assist in this matter. We welcome this as far as it goes. Scottish Water provides funding to Developers for the provision of the sewers so we believe the way forward does not necessarily require any legislative change. As Scottish Water is also currently reviewing its options available under the current operating regime to assist in this matter, we again urge the Petitions Committee to seek action from Scottish Water so that in future it s operating regime: 1. Ensures payments are made to developers only when all the work required for adoption has been done. This then does not expose Scottish Water to loss in the event of non-completion by a developer 2. Sees Scottish Water accept responsibility for sewerage matters on a house by house basis as and when a habitation certificate is granted by the local authority 3. Requires Scottish Water to bring the sewers up to the required standard where necessary, and to adopt the sewers thereafter at no cost to the residents 4. Provides sufficient enforcement powers to deal with non complying developers as is appropriate 5. Requires Scottish Water to work with the developer and the local authority to ensure all roads, drains and sewers etc are brought to an adoptable standard in an efficient manner that avoids the unadoptable sewers position referred to by one responding council and the currently protracted processes which John Wilson rightly identified as too long and driven by the developer rather than in the interests of Scottish Water and its customers. Scottish Water involvement at present just leaves matters with developers. The foregoing approach should resolve matters without recourse to legislation and we ask that it be put to Scottish Water and Waterwatch Scotland for serious consideration. Andrew Kaye, Treasurer

3 Appendix 1 Rebuttal of the Climate Change and Water Industry Directorate s response to the Petitions Committee. The letter is shown in full. Points being challenged are highlighted in bold. The challenge is in italics. Your letter of 14 January to Susan Malcolm in Transport Directorate was passed to me for consideration of a further reply to the points raised by John Wilson MSP during the 13 January meeting of the Committee. My previous letter of 20 November 2008 to the Committee explained in some detail the present legislative and technical arrangements in place to ensure that services and other facilities can be secured for people entering new estates. It also made the point that no amount of such provision will deal with situations where the building company concerned for whatever reason cannot or will not undertake to comply with these arrangements. If Scottish Water does not make any contribution to this work until it has been completed and adopted it should resolve this issue and encourage developers to get things done. It has to be questioned whether in such circumstances, local authority taxpayers or the generality of Scottish Water s customers should be expected to pick up the additional costs associated with the unsatisfactory completion of access roads and drainage in order to bring them up to acceptable standards. Why? This is avoidable for the reasons stated above. The residents are in any case local authority taxpayers and have been paying Scottish Water for its services on the estate for a considerable time. The fact is that Scottish Water is a utility provider and should be considered as such in this context. Electricity and gas provision is relevant parallel where ongoing infrastructure costs are met by the generality of electricity and gas customers. If you accept Mr Murray s view and apply it more generally we should not have road bond s either! As another of the Committee members suggested at the 13 January meeting, there are others within the purchase chain including the vendors, lawyers purchasing on behalf of customers, and perhaps also the intending homeowners who have responsibilities in this regard. Does Mr Murray seriously believe that intending house purchasers would be aware of a potential issue such as this? Of course they would not and we suggest their lawyers are in a similar state of ignorance on this matter. However if this is the view of the Climate Change and Water Industry Directorate then it should write accordingly to the Law Society for

4 Scotland. Presumably this would require that for every prospective house purchase, lawyers should seek confirmation from Scottish Water that the sewers are adopted. If not a retention would need to be held from the purchase price to protect the buyer. This practice would need to extend to the purchase of other than new houses because of the slow pace of current adoption processes. There must inevitably also be an element of buyer beware involved in such transactions. Why? With regard to the specific points raised by John Wilson about provision of the relevant level of security for roads and sewer systems, it would have been clear from my previous reply that Scottish Water does not enter into such arrangements. Rather new infrastructure is built to adoptable standards at which point it will be vested in Scottish Water and become part of the public networks. Scottish Water makes a reasonable cost contribution to the developer for this work arrangements which came into place formally at the beginning of the current Scottish Water investment programme on 1 April 2006 when The Provision of Water and Sewerage Services (Reasonable Cost) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 came into force. This legislation provides intending developers with the assurance that Scottish Water will make a contribution, per unit, towards the developers costs of providing water and wastewater infrastructure at new developments. This payment is fair as Scottish Water are the beneficiaries of the infrastructure and the income it generates. Surely such payment should only be made upon adoption in order to protect Scottish Water and the homeowners. Has any payment already been made in respect of phase 3? With regard to road bonds, the current system appears to work well, in that the bonds will allow roads authorities to construct or repair roads to a standard suitable for adoption by the Council. This helps to protect both the property owner and the Council in the event of the developer running into financial difficulties or simply abandoning their contractual obligations in which event there is presumably recourse in the Courts. The conditions associated with planning permission will also be relevant. As with my previous reply of 20 November 2008, therefore, we are satisfied that the current arrangements in place, including road bonds, NHBC Road and Sewer Bonds, and the Scottish Water reasonable cost contribution are sufficient to provide security and safeguards for intending purchasers of properties on new estates. This final statement appears to contradict completely everything else Mr Murray has said. As stated previously the NHBC Certificate does not cover the main sewers. Houses in phase 3 are covered by the Zurich not the NHBC and the Zurich has confirmed their policy does not cover the main sewers. What we need

5 is an unqualified and unequivocal statement that Scottish Water will manage its contribution to developers in a way that ensures no payment is made to developers until adoption is complete and that the practice of recourse to residents ceases. See attached Letter from Administrators for the Developer Yours sincerely Chairman: Keith McCarter, 10 Coopersknowe Crescent, Galashiels TD1 2DS Telephone:

6