To receive a briefing from Anglian Water on sewage outflows in the District. Members were requested to submit questions in advance for this session.
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed Grant Tuffs, Regional Engagement Manager (REM) and Natasha Kenny, Head of Quality Regulation and Enforcement (HQRE) at Anglian Water to the meeting. He reminded members that questions had been submitted in advance and the written responses to these had been circulated prior to the meeting. He therefore asked members to focus their questioning on additional points and issues, to avoid taking up too much time on matters that had already been covered. Cllr W Fredericks asked if the questions and written responses could be published on the Council’s website so that the public could access them. The Democratic Services Manager agreed to action this.
The Chief Executive outlined the background to Anglian Water’s attendance. He explained that concern over sewage outflows initially came to Full Council as a Notice of Motion in November 2021. Full Council made an additional recommendation to:
‘Request that all sewage water discharge events are immediately reported to the Council’s Environmental Health department and then consolidated into periodic reviews to be undertaken by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. These reports should include a full review of all sewage water discharge events in North Norfolk and should require the Council and the Overview & Scrutiny to engage with Anglian Water and for them to report on the progress and investments being made.’
This was the second time Anglian Water had attended the Overview & Scrutiny Committee to provide an update and since their last visit in June 2022, the District had lost three blue flags at East Runton, Mundesley and Sea Palling which had caused considerable public concern.
The Chairman thanked the Chief Executive and invited members to speak. He reminded them that although a question had been submitted regarding water supply, this was not an area of focus for the Committee and no further questions on this would be considered.
i. Cllr Dr V Holliday asked what was in the effluent that was being discharged from the storm overflows at the Holt water recycling centre into the River Glaven. She felt that the written response from Anglian Water (AW) had still not clarified this. The Head of Quality Regulation and Enforcement (HQRE) replied that the water recycling centre at Holt discharged continuous final effluent to the watercourse. There was also a storm overflow there. These two separate discharges were permitted by the Environment Agency and each permit would specify the conditions set in order to ensure that the ecology of the receiving watercourse was not harmed. She said that AW did not have a requirement to monitor storm overflow discharges (as in sample them) as they were very low impact discharges, as long as they complied with the conditions of their permit. AW did however record and report the number of times that discharges were made. She added that the continuous final effluent discharge from the water treatment centre was the treated discharge that ran through the sewage treatment works. There was a requirement to test for certain parameters, as set out in the permit, including suspended solids ammonia limits and biological oxygen demand as these could impact on the ecology of the receiving watercourse river. She said that she could provide a full set of permit parameters for Holt and the results of the samples taken over the last 12 months. The Regional Engagement Manager (REM) added that the storm overflows were designed to operate in storm conditions, so the predominant content was rainwater and it was going into watercourses that were already diluted. He said that AW was confident that the impact was miminal. If a discharge happened outside of storm conditions then this would be fully investigated.
ii. Cllr M Hankins referred to AW’s commitment to invest £200m into reducing the activation of storm overflows. He asked if the target of 2030 was correct and was concerned that this was a long way off and wondered if there was an ongoing programme in place to address this. The HQRE replied that there was a programme of works in place and this ran on a 5 year cycle and AW worked with Offwat and the Environment Agency (EA) on this basis to plan and deliver their programme of work. The current programme ended in 2025 and then the next one in 2030, so although references were made to projects being delivered by 2030 this did not mean that they would be delivered in that last year, they would occur throughout the 5 year period as part of an incremental programme. There were currently 165 schemes that were being delivered between 2020 and 2025 and these included increasing the amount of flow kept in the system and passed forward to water recycling centres for treatment and also the retention of storm water in storm retention tanks, to reduce discharges into water courses. To date, 115 of the 165 schemes in the current programme had been delivered. She said that during the next 5 year period further storm overflow improvements would be delivered but they would be staggered between 2025 and 2030.
In response to a further question from Cllr Hankins as to whether the programme of works was available to the public, the REM confirmed that the 5 year plans were published on AW’s website. The Chairman commented that the proposals to retain and store more surface water would certainly help manage overflows more effectively in the future. The fresh water could also be stored for other uses.
iii. Cllr W Fredericks referred to an overflow at the pumping station in Mundesley on 19th March 2023 (Mother’s Day). She said that although the water was testing clear after two days the surrounding land, including the concrete apron on the seafront and the land adjacent to the pumping station, was not. She asked if any lessons had been learned from this. The REM replied that this had been a very unfortunate incident due to a cracked sewer pipe and he acknowledged that AW had let people down on that occasion. He said that lessons had been learnt and an internal review had been undertaken. There had been some discussions as to whether to let nature take its course and allow the surrounding environment to become clean without intervention but a decision was taken to replace to clean some of the surfaces and replace some shingle at Mundesley. Cllr Fredericks replied that she hoped an action plan would be provided to the engineers attending such scenes in the future. She then spoke about the loss of the blue flag at Mundesley which had been lost during a period of drought and was not due to storm surges. However, recent testing of the water showed that contamination was down to bird fouling and the local community questioned this. The REM replied that blue flags were not part of the remit of AW, they fell under the EA, although he acknowledged that AW was a factor. The bird fouling issue had been picked up at Heacham and was factually correct as it was identified as part of an analysis there. He added that the blue flag process was part of a four year rolling programme and water status would need to excellent for a considerable time to ensure that it was retained or awarded. He said that AW was investing £2m to reduce discharge rates at Mundesley so it was hoped that by 2027, the blue flag would be re-awarded, adding that were several factors that could influence the outcome.
The HQRE added that AW was driven by science and would always carry out an investigation to understand the root cause of issues. There were various factos that could impact on bathing waters. She said that AW were learning all the time and they had an excellent coastal team undertaking work on this.
iv. Cllr H Blathwayt referred to the comments regarding sea water quality. He siad that there had not been a noticeable increase in bird life and said that EA testing had found a certian level of other animal pollutants too, including chicken DNA, which presumably had passed through humans first. He therefore believed that the majority of pollution in the sea was caused by humans. Cllr Blathwayt then referred to recent flooding events which had over-topped river banks and affected sewage drainage from low-lying communities in the east of the District. He asked if AW was confident that it could cope with the sewage and the amount of river water flooding. In conclusion, he asked about Knacker’s Wood water treatment centre to improve its efficiency and capabilities. The HQRE replied that it was interesting that chicken DNA was being found in the sea and she said that she would appreciate information relating to this being shared with AW and their coastal team could assess this. The REM said that regarding the flooding issues, storms were becoming more frequent and although AW’s assets were performing as they should, they were overwhelmed by the frequency and amount of surface water flooding. He said that AW was investing in climate mitigation and gave the example of the relocation of sewage pipes at Lowestoft as they were due to be affected by coastal erosion. A multi-agency approach was the best way to tackle such challenges and was already proving effective. Regarding Knacker’s Wood, he confirned that AW planned to invest £2m in upgrading this facility in the next 5 years.
v. Cllr J Toye asked whether AW’s funding was focussed on delivering new projects or did it include planned upgrades too. He was particularly concerned that there had been very limited population growth, so the majority of events were linked to storms and flooding and this implied that there had not been much forward planning. He also asked whether their funding programme factored in the impact of plans and programmes from other stakeholders, such as NNDC’s Local Plan. The REM replied that in terms of planning forwards, growth was a big factor and AW was a consultee for local plans. However, they were not currently statutory consultees for individual planning applications. There was funding allocated to growth in their 5 year programme and this was linked to forthcoming schemes across East Anglia, In response to the query regarding anticipating the impact of storms, the REM said that it was due to climate change and they would not anticipated the number and the impact of storms 5-10 years ago. The HQRE added that the funding was not focussed on maintaining the current system and assets, it was about enhancing them and driving down the number of spills.
The Chairman said that all agencies and stakeholders needed to bear responsibility for planning ahead and anticipating future events.
vi. Cllr N Housden said that he understood that AW had under-reported spills into rivers and had 11 of the worst sewage incidents in the country. He said that given the level of spills, he was particularly concerned about the River Wensum and sought assurance that there would be substantial investment to protect the major chalk streams. In conclusion, he asked how he could have confidence in what AW was saying, given that they were still awating Ofwat approval for their funding programme for the next 5 years. The HQRE replied that AW had two ways to report data to the EA and on the website. For storm overflow spill reporting, there had been 100% compliance. She said that Cllr Housden may be referring to the self reporting of pollutions. This was a different method and occurred when AW reported an incident to the EA. If a member of the public reported an incident, it was not logged as a self-reported incident. The EA measured AW on how many incidents were self-reported. To ensure all incidents were reported, AW enouraged the public to report them to AW as soon as possible. She acknowledged that AW had not done as well as hoped in 2022 and data science was being put in place to ensure that there was enhanced visibility of the sewer networks. In addition, 22k monitors were being installed across the region to obtain more information about what was occurring in their catchments. This would enable AW to get to incidents quickly and self-report. The REM added that AW’s future programme had to be published a year in advance and Ofwat would assess it. He said that £9bn was the largest investment proposal to date but it would be weighed against the cost of water bills and Ofwat would decide if it was a fair and balanced plan. Cllr Housden asked if there was a cap on the amount that AW could invest. The REM replied that there was not, Ofwat would decide if AW could deliver that amount of money, which came from shareholders.
vii. Cllr R Macdonald asked about the schedule for the improvement of water treatment in his ward of Gimingham. The REM replied that there had been two overflow discharges in 2022 on that site and although there were no concerns and it seemed to working as it should, the pumping station would be monitored.
viii. Cllr P Heinrich referred to North Walsham, which was a major growth area. He sought assurance from AW that there were plans in place to upgrade the sewage works and the water supply as confidence amongst llocal residents was low. The HQRE replied that AW would work with the Council’s growth team to see where growth was planned and the impact on serving the particular area. There was a drainage water management plan in place which looked at growth up to 30 years ahead. AW assessed the load on the network and the flow and whether the network was capable of supporting this. AW approached the EA and informed them that the flow to a particular area was going to increase and the EA would assess the impact on the flow into watercourses and review the standard and conditions of the permit. This would then drive any investment in the site.
The Chairman thanked everyone for their contributions. He asked members for input regarding the timing of any future reviews of AW’s progress. The REM offered to attend in June 2024 to ascertain members views on AW’s plan. Cllr Housden supported this suggestion. The Chairman said that it would need to be accommodated within the committee’s work programme, so it would be considered nearer the time. He suggested that the next monitoring report should be in a year’s time.
It was proposed by Cllr N Housden, seconded by Cllr P Fisher and
RESOLVED
1. To note the progress being made
2. To request a further update in 12-18 months’ time