Major wastewater infrastructure projects should be brought within the scope of the present system for accelerating the development of clean water projects, but with safeguards, the Worshipful Company of Water Conservators has said in response to the Ofwat July 2026 Consultation: the future of RAPID.
The Company advocates the disciplined expansion of RAPID, the Regulators’ Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development, but not enlargement for its own sake.
The Company says RAPID’s comparative advantage is its ability to assemble regulators around difficult, long-term and cross-boundary problems. Its success should be judged by whether better projects reach consent and delivery sooner, with lower whole-life risk, clearer accountability and demonstrably improved outcomes for customers, communities and the environment—not by the number of projects admitted to its programme.
Ofwat sought responses to a consultation on changes to RAPID which present a combination of accelerated funding pathways and tighter regulatory staging. The Company says that for major contractors these shifts pose significant risks alongside strategic opportunities.
Consultation positions
- National oversight — Strongly support. Strategic water infrastructure has long lead times, cross-company dependencies and material environmental and customer consequences. National oversight can improve sequencing, consistency and resolution of regulatory conflicts, but should not displace accountable regional planning or company delivery.
- Enhanced option development — Yes, with limits. RAPID can identify gaps and facilitate options where national or cross-regional resilience is at stake. It should not generate projects independently of transparent systems planning, need assessment and public-interest appraisal.
- Expanded entry criteria — Strongly support a risk-based test. Entry should be triggered where at least several of the following apply: multi-party or cross-boundary delivery; material regulatory conflict; high environmental sensitivity; long time horizons across control periods; novel technology or delivery models; system-critical resilience; major cumulative customer exposure; or a need for phased development funding.
- Timing — Pilot as a priority; scale over the longer term. A small transition portfolio should test wastewater and other strategic-project oversight before institutional transfer to the new regulator. Expansion must be matched by specialist wastewater, catchment, planning, commercial and programme-delivery capability.
- Wastewater and other projects — Include selectively. Definite candidates include strategic wastewater treatment or transfer projects, city-wide drainage and storm-overflow programmes, major water reuse, bioresources / sludge systems, interconnectors, drought-resilience schemes and projects with nationally significant industrial or housing demand. Ordinary site-specific WINEP schemes should normally remain outside RAPID.
- Avoiding duplication — One plan, one evidence base, aligned gates. RAPID should agree a common data room, evidence standard and integrated assurance plan with planning, environmental, economic and drinking-water regulators. Submissions should be re-used and updated rather than recreated.
The Company’s full response can be found in the Consultations section of this website.
Post a comment