04
The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed those present.
The following representatives from Anglian Water attended the Scrutiny Committee to give a presentation to answer the 8 questions listed below and to participate in a Q & A session with Members:-
Natasha Kenny – Head of Quality Regulation and Enforcement
John Brewington – Portfolio Lead for PR24
Grant Tuffs – Regional Engagement Manager
Daniel Wray – Water Recycling Networks Manager
Mervin Ward – Water Recycling Operations Manager.
The 8 questions which had been submitted to Anglian Water are as follows:-
1. The number and location of all outfalls in the GYBC area plus those on the main rivers flowing into Breydon Water.
2. Data showing the monitoring of these over the past 5 years including when raw sewerage was released.
3. The data regarding the environmental quality of water at the major GYBC outfalls.
4. Levels of sewerage release into the main three rivers Waveney, Yare and Bure.
5. The capacity of the existing sewerage network to encompass the proposed new housing development in the borough as set out in our new Local Plan at the Caister Sewerage Treatment Plant.
6. Which sites and treatment works will have ultra-violet system constructed in the near future. Order of prioritisation with reasons.
7. Plans for the immediate improvement in the GYC area; and
8. Please would AW comment on the recent court case involving the pumping station at Ormesby St Margaret failing causing the pollution of the spring dyke and resulting in the death of 4,000 fish. What is now in place to stop this happening again bearing in mind that this is now the 11th overflow into the dyke in the past 40 years. Considering the total state of dilapidation of the building, can AW allow us access to the maintenance records of the equipment housed in that building.
At the request of the Chair, the presentation from Anglian Water would be emailed to the Committee Members for information by the Democratic Services Officer.
Grant Tuffs (GT) gave an introductions to Anglian Water (AW). Since privatisation in 1989, AW has invested £16.9 billion improving services in the Eastern Region.
Natasha Kenny (NK) informed Scrutiny that storm overflows occurred when combined systems become overloaded during high rainfall.
Combined sewers take both sewerage and rainfall an can become inundated with water following high rainfall events. Storm overflows take pressure off the system by releasing excess water into rivers and the sea to protect homes and businesses from flooding. All storm overflows are permitted by the Environment Agency (EA) as the vast majority of what they release is rainwater. These types of sewers were built in the Victorian times and the 1960's & 1970's and none have been built since privatisation of AW in 1989. At present, separate foul and surface water systems are built.
John Brewington (JB) informed Scrutiny that all of the AW storm overflows are monitored. Event Duration Monitors (EDM) monitor spills; their frequency and duration, from AW storm overflows. This data is given to the EA as part of the AW regulatory annual return and this data can be viewed on the DEFRA data services platform. AW also publish data on their near real-time map which shows if a spill has commenced within an hour of activation of the monitor.
AW are currently installing thousands of additional sewer monitors which will help them to proactively act to protect customers and the environment. There are currently 107 monitors in the NR30 postcode. The installation of the Flow Detection Transducer monitoring units at the critical coastal discharge locations allows AW to predict when a bathing water may fall below a sufficient bathing water directive standard. AW notify beach owners, Surfers Against Sewerage, EA and the LA's via the BeachAware system in near real time so that they can make better informed decisions about water quality.
The EA are responsible for water quality and conducting bathing water testing, so the EA are best to advise on testing the North Sea. AW had previously commissioned a report into the sources of faecal indicator bacteria and have proposed a further study which, if approved, would be delivered between 2025 to 2020.
Members can find details of designated bathing waters available on the DEFRA data services platform at:-
https://environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/profiles/.
AW reported that there are 14 storm flows in the area which were detailed on a presentation slide. Data including the site name, receiving watercourse, no of spills in 2023 & 2024, length of duration of spills in 2023 & 2024 was shared with the Committee. The 2024 data covered the period 01/01/2024 to 30/11/2024.
Daniel Wray (DW) informed the Committee of planned improvements to the storm overflows in the borough. Across the AW region, AW had surrendered 119 permits in the last 2 years and where it was not possible to remove them, AW had a plan of action. AW had submitted a Storm Overflow Action Plan to DEFRA which contained a detailed improvement plan for each overflow to ensure that they were not discharging more than 10 times a year, on average over a 10 year period, by 2050.
AW had geared their next business plan towards addressing the highest priority storm overflows the soonest. Between 2025-2030 AW would spend £1 billion on storm overflow monitoring & improvements. AW's total enhancement spend on the environment would double to £4 billion and focus on nature-based solutions, for example, wetlands and sustainable drainage systems. NY 2023, AW would reduce total pollutions by 41% with no serious pollutions occurring.
AW Shareholder's have injected an additional £100 million to fast-track improvements. This funding will focus on blockage prevention of wet wipes, sanitary products and grease, improving existing AW assets and increasing capacity of AW systems and increasing resources to do this including recruitment of additional staff.
The Committee were shown a detailed slide of the planned improvements for storm overflows. However, an A-WINEP Programme could see some 2030 spill schemes extended to 2035. The data gave the name of the storm overflow, the 2023 EDM data, the completion date for the spill reduction scheme and the planned and proposed improvement detail.
AW then explained what an A-WINEP. was to the Committee, it consisted of 3 areas; the problem the solution and the outcome. The traditional WINEP option was £60m+ but an A-WINEP partnership governance had the potential to align funding and deliver far greater environmental outcomes and an A-WINEP option of £140m+ could be achieved through partnership working and co-funding.
The £60m + option would achieve 9 storm overflow WINEP obligations by 2023, Localised improved flood resilience to properties downstream of storage tanks, Tidal River Bure & Yare and 6 Bathing Waters benefit from reduced spills 2025-30 and this option is low risk.
The £140m+ option would address all overflows in the GY catchment area and achieve WINEP obligations by 2025, over 7000 properties would have increased flooding resilience( based on 1 in 50), the tidal River Bure & Yare and 6 bathing waters would benefit by reduced spills 2025-2035, urban regeneration of GY enhancing the environment, tourism, health a7 wellbeing for a left-behind community, 137 biodiversity net gains, hundreds of volunteering & education opportunities, creates a link between DWMP & PR24, embodies AW's cross-cutting themes, LTDS and purpose and would be achievable through partnership working and co-funding.
AW the discussed the comparison of approaches; traditional storage tanks versus strategic SWM catchment. AW detailed the costs of the traditional storage tanks to 2030 and listed their benefits. AW detailed the costs of the strategic SWM catchment by 2035 and their benefits:-
Storage Tanks
Offers a more certain approach to storm spill reduction (not reliant on 3rd party agreements).
Deliver spill reduction more quickly at targeted areas = environment benefits realised sooner.
Greater opportunity for financial reward in terms of spill reduction performance commitment.
Rivers benefitting: the tidal River Bure and Yare.
Uses our existing alliance partners in scheme delivery.
SWM Catchment
Improvement to flood risk – 404 domestic properties at risk of internal flooding and 7309 external flooding (1 in 50).
Opportunity to work with Water Resources East to reduce consumption (ie via water butts) or abstraction by treating storm water as a resource instead of a waste product and push back the need for desalinisation.
The creation of amenity areas to enhance wellbeing, biodiversity and community.
Increased tourism through improved bathing waters and town centre.
Reduced operational carbon.
Reduced storm spill to 2 per overflow each bathing water season before 2035.
AW then detailed customer support. Looking after the environment was seen as the 4th highest area of customer concern, with pollution and flood risk the 3rd highest. This matched the AW focus on prioritising their Storm Overflow WINEP programme based on environmental sensitivity and impact rather than spill frequency or lowest cost. This also includes a recognition of the importance to health & wellbeing of nature and green spaces. AW customers have indicated that they support a plan that enhanced the natural environment whilst increasing flooding and drought resilience.
AW outlined their role in planning. AW's say in planning was limited as developments had the automatic right to connect and AW are not statutory consultees in planning applications. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, any development with planning permission has an automatic right to connect to Anglian Water owned foul sewers, regardless of capacity issues/concerns. AW do however actively engage in the planning process by responding to major developments (10 dwellings or more). AW also comment on specific minor proposals if requested to do so by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
AW Public Affairs and Policy teams work with Westminster and Whitehall to lobby for policy changes which would improve outcomes for our customers and the environment.
Whilst the government is continuing to consider implementing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act, we are becoming more robust on our responses to planning applications (which we are not statutory consultees on) and local plans (which we are).
AW are looking to stipulate a Sustainable Point of Connection (SPOC) in a planning condition if there is an increased risk of flooding, spills from overflows or pollution. This will avoid network pinch points.
AW informed the Committee that the surface water from the roof of 1 house is equivalent to the waste water flow from 100 houses. AW work with customers to tackle mis-connections.
AW had also responded to the GY Local Plan and had engaged with the Council throughout the initial stages of LP preparation and evidence based development.
The summary of AW responses is as follows:-
AW Business Plan for 2025-2030 has proposed significant investment in the Borough to reduce storm overflows, flooding and improve bathing water quality.
Anglian Water is generally supportive of the First Draft Local Plan for Great Yarmouth, which proposes 7,500 homes for the period 2021-2041 (almost 3,000 of which already have planning consent).
The plan could be strengthened in some areas to assist with delivering sustainable and resilient growth and communities over the longer term. In terms of managing coastal change, surface water flood risk, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), integrated water management measures and water efficiency.
AW outlined their investment plans for 2020-2025, between 2020-25 AW had invested £59m in the GY district.
AW Business Plan for 2025-2030 has proposed significant investment in the Borough to reduce storm overflows, flooding and improve bathing water quality.
Anglian Water is generally supportive of the First Draft Local Plan for Great Yarmouth, which proposes 7,500 homes for the period 2021-2041 (almost 3,000 of which already have planning consent).
The plan could be strengthened in some areas to assist with delivering sustainable and resilient growth and communities over the longer term. In terms of managing coastal change, surface water flood risk, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), integrated water management measures and water efficiency.
AW outlined their proposed investment in 2025-2030. AW had proposed to invest £10billion across the eastern region between 2025-2030 to meet the needs of the growing region and ensure AW is resilient to climate change.
Total in the Great Yarmouth district: £75.7 million.
In addition to the storm overflow improvements set out previously, AW have proposed:-
A study by an independent consultant to determine if any of AW assets impact any of the Great Yarmouth designated Bathing Waters. AW can then determine whether UV disinfection would be beneficial.
£6 million scheme to connect properties in Runham to the sewerage network for the first time.
Monitoring of Emergency overflows at 11 pumping stations.
In addition to the £75.7 million, AW have proposed a strategic plan to remove surface water from the foul and combined sewer network (through storm tanks and SuDS) by working in partnership and identifying collaborative working opportunities. This will help to reduce storm overflows, flooding and improve bathing water quality.
AW finally outlined their Just Bin It Campaign as nearly all of the 37,000 blockages a year on the AW network were avoidable and AW were working to raise awareness:-
Blockages are caused by items such as wet wipes and fats, oils and grease being flushed down toilets or put down kitchen sinks.
AW have launched a new campaign – ‘Just Bin It’ to encourage customers to protect their pipes from blockages and avoid an unexpected plumbing bill.
Wipes take thousands of years to break down because they aren’t bio-degradable, so they belong in the bin and not down the loo. The number of skips AW fill with rubbish like wipes would stack up as high as Mount Everest.
To avoid blocked pipes and keep sewers clear we all need to Just Bin It. Just bin it to help keep the sewer pipes clean by:-
Only flushing the 3Ps: Pee, Poo and (toilet) Paper
Binning wet wipes and sanitary products
Once cooled, binning any cooking fat, oil or grease
AW would welcome the council's help in sharing this message.
The Chair asked AW to provide the data from as far a field as Trowse and Beccles as ultimately all these flows ended up in Breydon Water and ultimately, off the coast of GY and Gorleston beaches. NK agreed to forward this data and to provide a link to the Committee to enable them to access this information for themselves at any time.
Councillor Grant queried the two storm overflows situated at Braddock Road and opposite Haven Holiday Camp and asked if these had been capped. NK asked Councillor Grant to meet her after the meeting and indicate where these were on a map to enable her to make further enquiries and to provide an answer as they might be surface water outfall.
Councillor Jeal asked that AW address the number of spills and the unpleasant odour emitted from Bryants Quay. NK suggested that Councillors could look at the live maps online which detailed this information. DW reported that AW were directing more spills away from Bryants Quay.
The Chair asked for the percentage reduction in the number of overflows. JB reported that it was 2 spills per bathing water; 10 inland spills per year. AW would prioritise where to invest and undertake a whole catchment approach and was seeking to work in partnership to reduce the number of spills. The Chair informed AW that their recent intervention at Burgh Road had been very effective and asked whether new storage tanks would be installed. AW reported that Gorleston had the biggest pre-planned maintenance scheme and a new Pumping Station had been installed at Beccles Road to redirect the discharge away from Baker Street via a culvert which allowed for deep flows and slows the discharge into the system. A culvert was a smart approach which controlled the flow.AW reported that no underground storage was planned for the future, new developments were planned with attenuation basins to keep the surface water on the surface and not below the ground. Water butts, planters and biodiversity were other means of keeping surface water on the surface.
The Chair was concerned that AW always had capacity at the Caister Treatment Centre to allow for all the new housing developments across the Borough to connect to. NK reported the AW assessed capacity hydroponically for new development flow and by biological load to treat it. AW had to apply to the EA for a permit to treat it and EA assessed the AW permit to ensure that the amounts were safe to discharge in to the water course.
Councillor Grant questioned whether AW should push back if they did not believe that a new development had a sustainable point of connection. He reported that he welcomed the proposed change in the law which would give statutory powers to AW to respond to future planning applications which was long overdue.
Councillor Grant asked if AW were aware of the percentage of current capacity of each treatment centre. NK reported that AW did have this data and that AW calculated this using the population equivalent in the catchment area and she would provide this data after the meeting.
The Chair asked whether UV treatment would be introduced in the Borough as it had been in Kings Lynn which had proved to be very successful in reducing the amount of bacteria released into the surrounding bathing waters. Councillor Grant reported that Southwold had the UV system too.
AW reported that this was driven by bathing water quality and up to 12 investments for disinfecting, this might not be via UV, was planned in the next 5 years. This must be on a cost benefit basis. Councillor Jeal was concerned that UV would kill everything off and some things should not be killed off. AW reported that this was only used on final effluence to reduce solid waste before discharge into storm overflows.
Councillor grant raised the issue of the "Caister Pong" and asked whether blowers could be installed at the Caister Treatment Plant to capture the biomethane, turn it into gas and pump it back into Caister as was happening in Oxfordshire. The lowest 10% of deprived residents in the village could then receive a 20% reduction off their gas bill which would be a win-win situation. This could also be rolled out to large treatment plant sites such as Whittlingham. NK reported that there were 10 sludge treatment centres in the eastern region and that AW had schemes in place to support low income families & vulnerable customers to help pay their water bills.
Mervin Ward (MW) reported that AW were in regular contact with Caister Parish Council and work was continuously ongoing to reduce the unwelcome odour but it was hard to identify where in Caister was affected most. The system was continuously monitored and sulphides were well within statutory requirements. It might be the case that the odour was not emanating from the treatment plant. AW worked closely with EH officers in this area.
Councillor Hammond reported that the odour was particularly bad at Chapel Corner, West Caister but that the odour could disappear as quickly as it came.
Councillor Freeman informed AW of the dilapidated state of the pumping station in Ormesby St Margaret. MW reported that the telemetry system had been updated inside the pumping station but unfortunately the building itself had been neglected. AW did have maintenance records for the building but as such, there was no maintenance schedule, works were carried out as needed. Councillor Freeman reported that he had lived in the village for many years and had had sewerage in his home and garden five times as a result of the pumping station failing which was totally unacceptable.
MW assured the Committee that the pumping station had an intelligent system which would shut the release valve and hold back the throttle to ensure that that volume of liquid could never enter the dyke again and cause an ecological disaster on that scale again. Engineers monitored the data on an hourly basis and would be able to attend the pumping station and rectify any fault before a failure.
Councillor Grant highlighted the negative press which had arisen from the broken Stepshort pumping station. AW should be more proactive in the future and should have issued a statement to negate the unnecessary negative press, we all make mistakes and AW should have owned up to their mistake.
AW reported that they operated in a different way now and had taken Councillor Grant's comments on board. AW talked to its shareholders and its communities to ensure AW was on the front foot.
Councillor Thompson asked for reassurance that Runham was on the server installation list. NK assured the Committee that Runham was on the list and would be connected in the next 5 year programme.
The Chair thanked the representatives from AW for attending and their informative presentation and that the Committee would formulate a response to the issues raised and responded to at the meeting and forward it to AW for their consideration.
The AW representatives left the meeting at 19:45.