Water, wastewater and drainage: consultation analysis

Views on: Paying for services

Quantitative responses

The results of the closed questions are as follows:

• 237 respondents (48%) strongly agree and 161 (33%) agree that changing behaviour is essential to limit charge rises
• 414 respondents (84%) agree that we should recognise that there are three services (water, wastewater and drainage)
• 259 respondents (53%) do not agree that Council Tax Bands is the fairest way to charge for services used by households

In addition to the closed questions, we posed three additional free text questions to gauge respondents views and suggestions on paying for services. These free text questions generally received fewer responses than the closed questions.

Qualitative responses

Question 34: Do you agree that using Council Tax Bands is the fairest way to charge for services used by households?

This question featured a yes/no option for respondents, the results of which have been included in the quantitative data section. It also included a free text section for respondents to add any additional views. These additional views have been included below.

Of the 311 respondents who decided to provide additional information in the free text field, 85 suggested that metering would be a better way to charge for services. Respondents referred to the need to charge by use with some referring to the need for exemptions for certain groups, for example those on lower income.

The next most common response in the free text field with 34 was that household occupancy should affect charges. Respondents also considered this to be a fairer means of charging for services. One respondent wrote, ‘It should be dependent on the number of people living in the property and not the council tax bands. If only one person (possibly elderly) is living in a property with a high council tax band they would be unfairly penalized’.

The third most prevalent response with 30 responses was that council tax is outdated. Many respondents referred to council tax as not accurately reflecting water usage. Respondents reflected that the current system needs to be revised.

Other responses to this question included that charging based on council tax bands is unfair (29 responses) and council tax bands don’t reflect consumption (21 responses).

Question 35: In your view, how do we incentivise households/businesses to reduce water usage to levels that are sustainable for Scotland?

Of the 372 responses to this question 103 responses (28%) referred to metering as being a good way of incentivising reducing water usage. Many respondents commented that the public should be charged for what they use. This sentiment was similarly reflected in the above ‘Drinking Water’ section.

The second most prevalent response with 75 responses (20%) was education. Respondents referred to the need for education in schools and education for the broader public on the impact of high water usage and how to reduce this.

The next most prevalent response with 62 responses (17%) was public information campaigns. There was support for increasing awareness of the negative effects of consumption with some respondents citing a lack of information or awareness of the issue.

Other responses to this question included, financial incentives (59 responses), offering water efficiency advice (17 responses) and charging for water use over a particular threshold (15 responses).

Question 36: In your view, how could we incentivise households/businesses to manage rainwater differently to reduce rainwater entering the sewer system to levels that are sustainable for Scotland?

353 respondents provided views to this question. A wide range of views were given with 76 responses (22%) referring to the need for financial support for solutions. This included the need for financial support such as grants, for solutions such as rainwater collection, and subsidising other solutions, such as infrastructure to collect and use greywater in homes. The River Influence Project commented that, ‘people are more likely to make positive changes if they don't have to pay for them’.

The second highest response with 47 responses (13%) was that there should be discounts on bills offered to individuals. Many respondents commented that if people put in place measures to reduce rainwater entering the sewer system then they should be provided with a discount on their bills. Respondents cited this as being a good incentive for putting such measures in place, particularly as these measures often require individual investment.

The third most common response with 37 responses (10%) was that there should be public information campaigns to incentivise change. Respondents specifically mentioned showing individuals their options for reducing rainwater entering the sewer system and highlighting the impact this is having.

There were a variety of other responses to this question including, education (36 responses), free water butts (29 responses), more stringent building regulations (23 responses) and provide more advice and information (22 responses).

Engagement sessions

How services are paid for is a topic that came up frequently at engagement sessions and has been covered in some detail in the ‘Engagement Session’ sections for drinking water, drainage and wastewater. As most of these points have already been captured above, we have summarised the main points that were made regarding paying for services below:

• metering to reduce water consumption – There was discussion about metering, particularly in relation to its benefits as an incentive for reducing water consumption, particularly in relation to non-essential use (e.g. leaks, hosepipes). Many respondents perceived charging by consumption to be the best way to reduce water usage. However, there was also debate about the potential upfront costs of implementing this
• financial support for private supplies – The cost of maintaining private water as well as the cost of connecting to the mains supply was raised during the drinking water engagement sessions. Cost was often seen as a barrier to connection to the mains supply and improving systems. There was particular support for an increased grant amount to help owners and users reach an adequate standard of drinking water quality. Similar comments were made in relation to support for those reliant on private wastewater systems
• significant investment in the drainage system required – There was extensive discussion in relation to funding for drainage infrastructure, particularly from Local Authorities. There was concern regarding where this initial funding would come from and how the drainage infrastructure would be maintained and funded in the long term. This was covered in the ‘Drainage’ section of this report