(9.50 – 10.20am)
Progress report on Anglian Water actions following June Meeting and any updates to be noted.
Minutes:
The Chair introduced Grant Tuffs (Regional Engagement Manager), Joe Thompson (Regional Operations Manager for Norfolk) and Hannah Wilson (Planning Manager) from Anglian Water (AW), who gave an update on their plans and progress since their previous visit in June 2025 (see Appendix to these minutes.).
AW highlighted that all seven bathing waters in North Norfolk were now rated as excellent. The Environment Agency (EA) rated the area as having some of the cleanest waters in the UK. The AW 5-year business plan had outlined a £11 billion investment in the region, including £1 billion to tackle storm overflows, specifically targeting those storm overflows that spill the most and have the greatest environmental impact. AW were also looking to reduce phosphorus, nitrogen and ammonia going through the water system, which has an environmental impact.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee.
Cllr Fletcher asked about the conservation of rivers, and protection of watercourses, with the increased pressures of providing new houses in the area. AW admitted that their business plan did not take into consideration the Government’s aspirations for growth, and accelerated delivery of growth, so they had changed how they were responding to planning applications and were objecting when their water recycling centres (WRC) were at capacity, or in some cases over capacity. This was due to protecting the environment at the receiving watercourse. They were recommending a pre-occupation condition for schemes within their business plan where a local authority applied a condition which would ensure the developer did not connect to the network, increasing the waterflows at that recycling centre, until AW had delivered that growth scheme. AW permits at WRC were unique to each centre and set by the EA with the intention of protecting the environment. AW were also using the planning system to highlight any constraints within the network, looking at overflows, pollution, the potential for increased spills and flood risk. They were working collaboratively with Government, DEFRA and OFWAT to understand how they could meet the demands of growth, whilst protecting their customers and the environment.
It was noted by Cllr Hankins that it was a good thing that AW had recognised there had been a significant increase in planning and asked if they had seen the Council’s new Local Plan. AW confirmed they had seen it and had asked for specific provisions in the policies to ensure developers engaged with them early so they could confirm if there was capacity to ensure the environment was protected.
Cllr Rouse joined the meeting.
In response to Cllr Hankins’ question querying if the increased number of houses provided a challenge in meeting that demand for supply, AW confirmed it did pose a challenge, although proposed development in North Walsham was less impacted from an environmental capacity as it did not discharge into a watercourse but into the North Sea, meaning less pressure on the WRC. AW explained they had a duty to supply domestic properties and for businesses, their toilets, kitchen and showers, so were looking at long term water resource and to protect that supply. In certain cases, that would include restricting non-household and industrial water demand, working with those industrial sites to lower water usage and encourage re-using water; as well as working with developers to deliver schemes that reduced water consumption.
A similar question was raised by Cllr Cushing in respect of the future developments planned in north Fakenham which would see an approximate 20% increase in the town. Unlike North Walsham they only had 1 water tower, so he asked for reassurance that some consideration had been made towards water capacity for the town.
AW were happy to take away the queries from Cllrs Hankins and Cushing in relation to the new homes planned for North Walsham and Fakenham and how they intended to meet that demand, but AW reiterated they were obliged to find ways to deliver for those domestic customers.
Cllr Leith also wished to know why North Walsham East residents were reporting that water pressure in that area was so low they couldn’t have a shower and run a dishwasher at the same time. AW advised that water pressure was a statutory requirement so they had to maintain pressure but would urge anyone with low water pressure to report it to them so they could investigate and look to resolve the issue.
Cllr Shires, Member for North Walsham West and Norfolk County Council Member for North Walsham East, had noticed that much of the AW infrastructure was failing and highlighted the many damaged pavements and roads caused by AW digging up surfaces. This caused difficulty for those with mobility aids in accessing the town centre and key services as well as proving a hazard for cyclists and motorbikes as they had less grip on the road. People said they had no faith in AW to deliver, with expansion coming, and, although Cllr Shires appreciated there were budgeting constraints, she felt investment was required if people were not to be disadvantaged by AW in an attempt to fix poor infrastructure. AW said if details were forwarded to them of where the damaged surfaces were located they would take it up with their local network reinstatement teams. Cllr Shires agreed to provide this after the meeting.
The Chair asked about developments within the current local plan that might be exceeding capacity in terms of treatment or delivery. AW said they now raised an objection within the planning process where the environment or capacity was at risk, despite it being in a local plan. AW said that in respect of planning applications they now looked at total risk, rather than size of development, so one dwelling in a rural area could have a high risk, where with larger developments they very often had more control, time and conversations with developers. AW also confirmed, after a query from The Chair, they were statutory consultees for the Local Plan but not planning applications. They had lobbied Government for many years arguing they should be for both.
AW did say the Council’s planning case officers were very good in notifying, and consulting them over applications and, additionally, they used a third-party to notify them of applications in the area and were due to speak to the Planning team very soon.
In response to a query from the Chair about the, in many cases Victorian, sewage network having capacity, AW said all North Norfolk sewage networks were monitored. The network monitors they had installed detected issues early to inform them of how the network was coping or if at risk of failure. They explained they carried out a programme of maintenance on their sewage network as much as they do on the clean water network and will fix, monitor and replace those in need on a priority basis. They assured the Chair that many of the older network was actually very good. Those monitors currently had an uptime of 97.8% and that was a performance metric upon which they were judged. The Chair did note that the overflow monitors for Holt, Langham and Walsingham appeared to be off after the recent heavy rain. AW confirmed that monitors were sometimes off for maintenance, or fault, with many being fixed daily to ensure optimum performance. Sometimes it could be a glitch as to how they show on their map but would happily confirm in this instance the specific reason if the Chair wished. The penalties for monitors being off were quite high so it was in AW’s interest, for transparency purposes, that they remained online.
In terms of investment in reducing spill frequency at Langham, Walsingham and Holt there were investigations in those areas that essentially resulted in a modelled output, and they were likely to inform the next investment cycle, due between 2030 and 2035, subject to any wider regulatory change in the industry. Those overflows that were being improved in the area during that current cycle were those the EA deemed to be the most environmentally impactful ones.
The Chair asked if using dry weather flow to estimate WRC headroom was the most sensible methodology and AW said it was the rules they follow for calculating capacity. They could not comment if it was the best methodology for it, but it was what the industry followed per guidance from the EA and gave you a reasonable idea.
Cllr Rouse asked for an update to spillages since AW last visited. AW explained they were aiming to reduce discharges by 17% over the next 5 years, which was in line with the Government standards storm overflow reduction plan. AW reported that up until the end of October discharges occurred on 194 occasions with an average of 6.4 spills per storm overflow for an average of 21 hours, which was significantly lower than the previous year and that was linked to the dry weather, but also that some of their interventions were beginning to help. All storm overflows were on a storm overflow reduction plan which was published on the Government website and people could view what the plan was to reduce spill numbers and what AW actions would be over the next 10-15 years to meet those targets.
AW also brought to the Committee’s attention the new storage tank at Runton, Beach Road, which was now online and significantly impacted the spill frequency.
They also confirmed, at the Chair’s request, that the permits they received from the EA in respect of discharging into chalk streams had very tight parameters compared with when the receiving watercourse was a km into the North Sea, as the nutrients being discharged this way had less of an environmental impact so fewer constraints.
AW kindly offered to answer any questions, submitted after the meeting, in writing and the DSGO will liaise with all Members and AW to action.
Action