To receive and note the briefing.
Minutes:
The Chairman introduced the item and informed Members that the briefing had been arranged as a result of a recommendation from Full Council to request that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee monitor the efforts made by Anglian Water (AW) to mitigate sewage outflow events in North Norfolk. It was noted that the Director of Quality and Environment (DQE) and the Regional Engagement Manager (REM) were in attendance for the briefing.
Questions and Discussion
i. The DQE began with responses to questions submitted in advance and noted that these fell into two categories relating to planning, or sewage overflows and storm discharges. The REM stated that with regards to planning, AW were not statutory consultees for planning applications, though they did play a role as developers had a ‘right to connect’ to the existing water and drainage infrastructure. He added that AW sought to work with local planning authorities and developers to ensure that any development proposed would be sustainable and not cause detriment to the environment. It was noted that the first question asked whether the existing networks in the region were combined foul drainage and surface water sewers or separate, to which it was confirmed that the region was mixed, though coastal areas often had more mixed networks, as a result of historical installations. The REM stated that inland drainage systems were more likely to be separated into distinct surface water and foul sewerage networks. He added that AW were responsible for foul sewage and some combined systems, whilst the majority of surface water drainage systems were managed by the lead local flood authority - NCC. It was suggested that going forward, all new developments would have separate systems wherever possible.
ii. The second question related to network capacity, and the extent to which AW were consulted on any planning decisions that may impact the network. The REM stated that AW did seek out and request planning authorities to apply conditions where these were considered necessary. It was noted that developers could not be charged for fixing any existing issues, which necessitated efforts to ensure that any new development would not cause detriment to the network. The REM reported that the Strategic Flood Alliance had made excellent progress in bringing together key stakeholders to address areas with persistent surface water flooding issues.
iii. The third question related to the frequency and issues caused by heavy rainfall events, and the REM noted that AW were one of the most effected water companies in the UK for issues related to climate change, including periods of excess water flow and water scarcity. He added that generally speaking foul flows were entirely manageable within the constraints of AW’s existing assets, and where growth was expected investment was concentrated to mitigate potential issues. It was noted that surface water issues remained the responsibility of NCC, though AW did encourage and advise on the best solutions to avoid overwhelming the foul drainage network. The REM stated that where all other options were exhausted, some surface water drainage would occasionally be connected to the existing foul network, in which case efforts would be made to ensure this would not cause future issues.
iv. The Chairman stated that in terms of focus, the Council had requested the Committee to review sewage discharge events, and to report progress on any investment in mitigation measures. He added that communications were a key issue, and asked what relationship AW had with the Environmental Health Team to communicate these issues quickly and effectively to ensure public safety. The DQE stated that communication of sewage outflow events and event duration monitoring (EDM) data was published on the AW website, and also passed to the Rivers Trust, Surfers Against Sewage, and the AW Beach Alert system. He accepted that this was not agile enough, and the new Environment Bill would require water companies to move to near real-time publication of information on these issues. It was noted that the Beach Alert system was in place to alert users to possible contamination events, and it was expected that the same system would be replicated for rivers by year end with a postcode check system.
v. On combined sewage overflows (CSOs), the DQE noted that combined systems had been historically installed to prevent sewer flooding with pressure release valves that would discharge high pressure into the environment. The now questionable theory at time of installation, was that during a high rainfall event, sewage would be very dilute with rivers in full flow to further dilute effluent. The DQE stated that this theory was unacceptable by modern standards, and AW were therefore implementing a strategy to address issues with old systems still in place. This would include installation of EDM monitors on all 53 CSOs within North Norfolk, with the network coverage currently at 71%, with 100% coverage expected by 2023 in advance of the original March 2025 target. The DQE stated that spills did not automatically equate to environmental damage or harm, as sewage outflows only equated to approximately 1% of environmental harm, though all efforts were taken to ensure that good ecological status was maintained. He added that monitoring would form part of a risk assessment process to better understand where high spillage events were most likely, to target investment as necessary. It was noted that EDM monitors in Cromer has suggested 1219 hours of spills on 154 occasions, but this was unquestionably the result of a broken monitoring system and the fault would be addressed as soon as possible.
vi. The DQE stated that AW had already removed 300 highest risk CSOs from their network and planned to invest £200m into resolving further issues by 2025. He added that whilst some of this would include the installation of EDM monitors, a large part would be used to improve the capacity of the network itself. It was noted that many CSOs operated as a result of blockages in the network that were caused by incorrect materials being placed into drains, such as plastic containing wet wipes, and AW welcomed the opportunity to work with partners to avoid these issues. The DQE suggested that he would also welcome the opportunity to invite Councillors to visit a water treatment facility in the District to see these issues first hand. He added that the other reason CSOs operated was water ingress, and additional capacity would be created to help mitigate this. It was noted that additional storm storage tanks were not a final solution, and efforts must continue to create more upstream solutions such as working with developers, lobbying against the automatic right to connect, and developing sustainable urban drainage schemes within all new developments.
vii. The DQE stated that in addition to increased demand from new developments, there was also a legacy issue that had to be addressed with thousands of older surface water drainage systems potentially connected to the foul network. He added that following an investigation of 10k properties in the town of March – Cambridgeshire, approximately 2k homes had their rain water catchment directly connected to the foul water system, in addition to 425 highways gullies. It was noted that there were also 425 hectares of impermeable surfaces, which contributed to surface water entering the foul network. The DQE reiterated the efforts AW were making to address these issues, and stated that it was crucial to improve partnership working to create upstream solutions.
viii. The Chairman referenced communication and noted that the public had to visit a website to determine whether it was safe to go swimming, and asked whether this information could be better placed in the public domain. The DQE replied that when CSOs operated the Beach Aware system would send out an automated alert to the relevant local authority, the Environment Agency and Surfers Against Sewage (SAS). He added that SAS had a Safer Seas and Rivers app, which the public could download for real time information on swimming safety. The Chairman referred to communication with local authorities, and asked who received these notifications. The REM confirmed that the notification were sent to Members of the Environmental Health Team, though it was suggested that links could be improved and a written response would be provided on the specific individuals that received notifications. The DQE added that efforts to improve river bathing were also underway as one of five pledges made by AW for residents to be no more than one hour away from a designated bathing area either coastal or inland. It was noted that engagement with local residents would be undertaken, and it was possible that environmentally friendly UV disinfection or other methods such as PerFormic Acid could be utilised.
ix. Cllr L Withington referred to the removal of 300 CSOs and asked whether a progress update was available. She added that she was pleased to hear that the target had been brought forward to 2023, and suggested that Parish and Town Councils could help promote any water safety messages, alongside efforts to improve awareness of the Safer Seas and Rivers app in coastal areas. The DQE replied that AW could provide regular annual or six-monthly updates on investment schemes. The Chairman suggested that at present the Council received snapshot information, but it would be helpful to receive a more continual flow of information to identify patterns and help to resolve issues.
x. Cllr A Brown referred to storm overflows and noted that when dealing with AW, he had found the service provided to be efficient, though there was a slight communication problem with no dedicated helpline for the issue. He added that communicating these messages had been a long process, with little cooperation from NCC on the need to clear their assets. Cllr A Brown asked whether it would help to make unauthorised connections to the foul network a criminal offence. The REM replied that this would help, and AW were continuing to lobby Government on this issue, and that with regard to communications, it was important to ensure that all issues were reported through customer contact centre to ensure they were included in the corporate recording process. It was suggested that the REM could also be a regional point of contact for Councillors to report issues. Cllr A Brown asked a subsequent question on whether AW were engaging pro-actively on resolving nutrient neutrality issues. The DQE replied that AW had been taken by surprise on the nutrient neutrality issue, though data was being provided at a regional level to carefully monitor phosphate levels, with many sites already over-treating to achieve required phosphate standards and nitrogen levels. He added that AW were also working with the Norfolk Rivers Trust to undertake a scoping study on the development of wetlands alongside other nature-based solutions that would seek to promote biodiversity net-gain and carbon sequestration. It was noted that AW had also been asked to contribute ideas to the Environment Agency on how developers could better contribute to help speed up the development of AW assets that would protect against environmental harm.
xi. Cllr N Lloyd referred to a location in which AW surface water drains ended on land of indeterminate ownership, and noted that he had tried to engage on this issue to highlight a responsibility to maintain the area and pipeline. The DQE suggested that discussion could take place after the meeting to resolve the issue.
xii. Cllr S Penfold stated that it was helpful to have more data going forward, and asked whether sewage outflow events were declining or getting worse. The DQE replied that data suggested the number of events and duration were declining, which suggested improvement from 38 CSO events in 2018, to 25 in 2021. Cllr S Penfold asked whether it was AW’s intention to achieve zero CSO events, to which the DQE replied that spills did not necessarily equate to environmental harm, and the efforts required to achieve zero CSOs could be more harmful than the events themselves.
xiii. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted that the region had one of the most dynamic coasts in Europe that was particularly susceptible to coastal erosion related to surface water issues, and asked how AW would address issues in future, to which it was noted that a written reply would be provided.
xiv. The Chairman noted in summary that there were issues to address in regards to communicating with the public, a requirement for improved data sharing arrangements, and a need for improved partnership working. He added that many issues could be helped by the involvement of Parish and Town Councils. It was noted that the Chairman was also surprised to learn of the scale of unknown connection into the foul network, given that residents often paid for this service. The Chairman noted that he was also surprised to hear that AW had been caught off guard by nutrient neutrality legislation, and assumed it was likely the timescale that was the issue, given that AW would have monitored nutrient levels in rivers for many years.
RESOLVED
1. To receive and note the briefing.
ACTIONS
Anglian Water to consider the following actions relating to combined sewer overflows (CSOs):
1. To implement improved means of communication with residents and tourists in North Norfolk to notify of emergency discharge of raw sewage in coastal, river and broads locations to allow members of the public to make informed decisions about swimming or other waterborne activities and the related health risks in these areas.
2. To develop partnership working with NNDC Environmental Health and other partners on data sharing of emergency sewage discharges and other pollution events harmful to human health and the environment, to identify trends and improve performance monitoring.
3. To work with NNDC and communities most effected by emergency sewage discharges to ensure that the causes of current problems are understood, and that all possible mitigation measures are taken to relieve issues and ensure that discharge events are less frequent and shorter in duration.
4. To facilitate an NNDC visit to a Water Recycling Facility, so that Members develop a better understanding of the practical challenges in managing CSOs.