Our Club sent a letter to the Environment Agency leadership team in 2018 requesting action to combat the rising levels of phosphates in the Hampshire Avon.
This rise in phosphates has been predominantly due to increased housing developments in the area. A lot more sewage water needs to be treated in the existing treatment plants whose infrastructure cannot cope anymore.
The new letter below is the continuation of the Club’s request for action as the phosphate levels in the river have now exceeded the permitted limits under the water framework directive and need urgent action by the Environment Agency.
To: Emma Baker
Wessex Area Director, Environment Agency Rivers House,
Blandford, Dorset DT11 8ST
emma.baker@environment-agency.gov.uk
and to LegalSupport@environment-agency.gov.uk
Our ref: AT
Your ref: JS/NM/EA/02
From:
c/o Andreas Topintzis (General Manager)
The Cart Shed, New Bottom Lane Stratford sub Castle
Salisbury SP4 6AB
Tel 01722 321164
office@salisburydistrict.co.uk
Dear Emma,
Re:Environmental Crisis in the River Avon near Stonehenge
Regulation 29 The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015
(“the Environmental Damage Regulations”)
Wessex Water Limited
I refer to the correspondence passing between the Club and the Agency in 2018 and 2019. In particular, I refer to the Club’s letter of 17th January 2019 and Mr. Nick Gupta’s reply dated 19th February 2019.
For ease of reference, I remind the Agency that the Club remained of the view that there was an imminent threat of deterioration to the river and asked for confirmation of the unequivocal assurance given by representatives of the Agency that if the Club’s prediction of the threat of deterioration occurred, the Agency would take immediate action to address this. The Club concluded its letter saying: –
“We look forward to hearing further with regard to the threat posed by additional phosphate loading, in the spirit of cooperation expressed by the Agency representatives. In the meantime, the Club reserves its position on the Request for Action.”.
In his reply, Mr. Gupta constructively said: –
“You asked for confirmation that we would take actions if your predictions of deterioration proved to be correct. I can confirm that we would take all possible actions within our statutory powers to address any confirmed deterioration.”.
Accurate Prediction of Deterioration
Unfortunately, the Club’s prediction of deterioration has indeed proved correct.
The Phosphate thresholds for deterioration of the river from ‘Good’ status are as follows: –
The Agency’s own published data, discloses the annual average orthophosphate from the two sites is as follows: –
The orthophosphate threshold for deterioration under the Water Framework Directive has been crossed. The status at both Amesbury and Stratford sub Castle is now ‘Moderate’.
This is confirmed by the Agency’s own classification data for the downstream Nine Mile River stretch of the Avon. The chemical status failed in 2019. The reason for the failure to achieve ‘Good’ was phosphates.
Reason for the Deterioration
The cause is obvious. Increased populations served by the STWs at Ratfyn and Amesbury have resulted in greater loading of phosphates into the river.
Unforeseen Increase in Populations served by Ratfyn and Amesbury STWs.
The population served by the two STWs has increased far more than the growth forecast in the 2015 Nutrient Management Plan (“the NMP”).
First, the Army Rebasing, which was completed towards the end of 2019, resulted in a population increase of no less than 6,500 served by Ratfyn STW. In its original Request for Action, the Club was led to believe that it was only 4,715.
Next, the Club was also led to believe that the population increase served by Amesbury STW was not so large as is in fact the case. There are 630 new homes at the Archers Gate development and 1085 at Kingsgate, as well as a 60-bed nursing home. The Kingsgate development is not yet fully complete. A visual inspection reveals that about a quarter remains to be built. While the Club does not know the exact population increase that results from these developments, even taking a modest 2.2 people per home, the population increase is nearly 4,000.
Compare this with the population forecast for 2020 in the NMP: –
The population served by Amesbury is due to expand even further. A further 350 new homes are included in Wiltshire’s Local Strategy Plan. There is an anticipated 6,500 increase from future development at Boscombe Down. In addition, a further 1,200 homes at Amesbury are under active discussion between Wiltshire Council and a developer.
The Phosphate Discharge Concentrations from the STWs
The concentration of phosphate discharges from the STWs remains within the 1mg/L consent given by the Agency. However, in the case of Ratfyn the concentration is much higher than assumed in the NMP.
There was an obvious mistake in the NMP (which the Club notices was signed off, amongst others by none other than Mr. Gupta) in the case of Ratfyn. In the case of Amesbury, the NMP got it about right.
The Club has to say that it believes Wessex Water has done remarkably well in managing to keep phosphate discharge levels below its 1mg/L consent notwithstanding the population growth.
However, Wessex Water’s best efforts notwithstanding, the growth has resulted in greater phosphate load. While the Club does not have the actual flow data, as a matter of common sense, and as you must be aware, even at a steady concentration of phosphate effluent, a greater volume of discharge results in greater phosphate loading in the river.
The current STWs at Ratfyn and Amesbury are inadequate to reduce the phosphate loading to prevent the deterioration. The further population growth in the pipeline can only make it worse.
If further evidence of the increased flow through the STWs is needed, the Club reminds itself that as long ago as 2015, in response to planning application 15/02530/VAR, relating to the Archer’s Gate development, Wessex wrote “Recent planning applications have increased the number of dwellings in the
sewer catchment beyond the design capacity of the original sewer improvements.”. Sure enough, as predicted by Wessex, the consented discharge of ammonia from Amesbury STW is now exceeded.
Conclusion as to Deterioration
In view of the above, in the case of the Avon downstream Nine Mile River, the NMP has been superseded by events. The phosphate loading exceeds the levels assumed in the NMP. On the one hand the plan mistakenly assumed that the Ratfyn STW was able to reduce phosphate discharge to 0.183 mg/L, where in fact the capability has proved to be only 0.6 mg/L. The level of stripping is 228% less effective than then considered achievable. On the other hand, the population served by the Amesbury and Ratfyn STWs has increased to an extent far removed from the numbers forecast in the NMP. The NMP is impractical and unworkable in the case of this part of the river.
The NMP itself admits that in the case of the River Avon downstream Nine Mile River: –
“Delivery of the necessary reductions through diffuse sources is likely to be challenging for this water body, with diffuse reductions needing to approach 75% of the ‘optimum scenario’. The effects of growth are considered to have moderate likelihood of potentially compromising delivery of the NMP objectives”.
Unanticipated development has compromised the delivery of the NMP objectives. This is confirmed by the Agency’s email to Wiltshire Council dated 9th March 2018 : –
“Evidence suggests that the targets in the Hampshire Avon nutrient management plan are unlikely to be delivered by 2021.”
How to verify the cause of the phosphate deterioration
Although the Club is confident that it has correctly identified the cause of the phosphate increase (not least because there is no other readily discernible reason for it) the Club respectfully suggests that the Agency obtain historical and current flow data for the Ratfyn and Amesbury STWs. This will enable a calculation of the loading and achieve certainty. The Club asks the Agency to share the data, so that the Club too can check the calculations.
A review of the actual phosphorous loading will assist assessment of the variation in discharge consents needed to achieve the 0.05mg/L orthophosphate objective intended by the NMP. Moreover, given that the Ratfyn and Amesbury STWs are only about a mile apart, with very little agricultural land in between them, it is obvious that no amount of offsetting can reduce the phosphate concentration in this part of the river.
Remedy and Prevention of the Deterioration
The Agency’s duties under the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015 and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 have the effect that it must now exercise its functions to prevent the deterioration.
The Club adopts a sanguine approach as to what can and should be done. It seems to us that there are three actions that can sensibly be taken, as follows: –
(1) Continuation of Offsetting
The Club welcomes this work and encourages it. However, in this part of the river offsetting is inadequate to achieve sufficient reduction in phosphate. The outcomes of offsetting are unquantifiable, and this is a long-term programme. This is acknowledged in para. 2.2 of the Wiltshire Council “Updated Addendum to ‘Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan Pre-Submission”: –
“The underlying premise of the plan (i.e. the NMP) was that increases in sewage derived phosphate would be more than offset by reductions from agricultural sources, such as farming, due to the catchment sensitive farming initiative which is funded through Defra. However, by early 2018, Natural England and the EA reported that catchment sensitive farming was much less effective than projected in the NMP modelling and unlikely to offset increased phosphates from new development.”
The Club does not have a complete understanding of the extent of the measures proposed in the NMP. These are set out in Annexes 1 – Implementation Plan, 2 – Supplementary Planning Document and 3 Evidence and Monitoring Plan. The Club has not been able to obtain copies of the annexes. Might the Club ask you to supply these? They might provide some assurance to the Club.
(2) Discussion about the exercise of Powers to vary Consents
The Club hardly needs to remind you of your mandatory statutory duty to determine consent authorisations to prevent environmental damage.
The Club also reminds you of the conclusions that the Agency, through Mr. Gupta, signed off in the NMP, namely: –
“….. existing consents are therefore subject to assessment, with a view to ensuring that they do not or will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of that site, and hence avoiding the deterioration of the site which may have otherwise arisen from existing activities that are regulated.”
“The uptake of all available post-review consented headroom across the catchment is therefore now considered to be reliant on the NMP providing sufficient certainty that an adverse effect on integrity of the River Avon SAC, or damage to the River Avon SSSIs through additional phosphorus loading from proposed development, will be avoided by implementing the plan”.
Here, not only is there sufficient certainty that the NMP implementation will or has been able to avoid adverse effect, but also it is accepted that the NMP cannot avoid adverse effect. The NMP is inadequate on its own to mitigate the increase in phosphorous loading from the developments SADAC has identified. The NMP recognised: –
“It is possible therefore that whilst measures taken across the catchment will certainly deliver overall reductions, there may be localised stretches where further phosphorus loading might compromise the ability of the NMP to deliver its overall objectives.”
The Avon downstream Nine Mile River is just such a localised stretch.
It is technically feasible to achieve phosphate discharge reductions to as low as 0.01mg/L- 1. The NMP recognises the imposition of tighter phosphorus limits on STWs where technically feasible. It is not merely appropriate, but the Agency’s duty, to vary the limits. It certainly behoves the Agency to reconsider them as a matter of urgency.
That said, the Club takes on board that tighter consent limits cannot be obtained overnight. It invites discussion as to how this might be achieved as soon as practicable and in any discussion, the Club will recognise the difficulty in which Wessex Water has been placed: – its infrastructure investment is constrained by OFWAT; OFWAT appears to allow no more investment than is necessary to enable Wessex to comply with its consent limits; the consent limits have been set by the Agency; the current PR19 has been prepared taking into account only the existing 1 mg/L consent.
The Club’s very first query will therefore be whether PR19 is now set in stone or whether there is some flexibility in its application. To the extent that OFWAT constraints might hinder investment, the Club is prepared to be as constructively helpful as it can in making the point that under the Water Industry Act, OFWAT has a duty “to secure the long-term resilience of water undertakers’ supply systems and sewerage undertakers’ sewerage systems as regards environmental pressures, population growth……”.
(3) Cesspits and Septic Tanks
The NMP recognises that unsewered waste, not least from cesspits and septic tanks make a not insignificant contribution to phosphate loading. Penny Johnes’ excellent study on the impact of septic tanks indicates that the impact of these is underestimated1. The General Binding Rules, that came into force as recently as October 2019, prevent discharges into soakaways, well or borehole from discharging effluent to groundwater and require proper systems into drainage fields in accordance with relevant British Standards. There are also obligations on owners to supply proper information to buyers if they sell the property. There are sanctions for non-compliance.
There are many cesspits and septic tanks that have for years remained unchanged or improperly serviced and fall foul of the General Binding Rules. A great deal of time and energy is expended by officers or agents on the ground seeking to persuade landowners to adopt measures to mitigate diffuse run-off.
The Club asks whether some of that time might usefully be diverted to consider septic tanks and cesspits. It respectfully suggests 3 measures that might have a significant, salutary, and relatively timeous impact:-
- write to all properties that have a septic tank or cesspit within a certain distance of a watercourse informing of the responsibilities under the binding rules and of the sanctions for non-compliance.
- write to the Law Society and the Society of Licensed Conveyancers asking them to remind their members of their responsibilities and duties to clients under the General Binding
- inspect a selection of properties having septic tanks near the river to check In cases of failure, prosecute the owners. A couple of published prosecutions is likely to cause other owners to comply.
Conclusion
The time for addressing the deterioration is overdue. The Club’s members, amongst many others, are increasingly annoyed and frustrated by the Agency’s inaction and failure to address consent limits. The members are bemused that in its original response to this Request for Action the Agency said that there was no deterioration or imminent risk of deterioration, when at the very same time the Agency was writing to Wiltshire Council saying that the NMP wasn’t working. They ask how the apparent contradiction can be explained. Is there any sensible explanation?
Andreas Topintzis
On behalf of The Salisbury and District Angling Club
1 Characterisation of treated effluent from four commonly employed wastewater treatment facilities – a UK case study. [Journal of Environmental Management 2019]; see also Septic tanks as sources of phosphorus and other pollutants in rural catchments – published by The James Hutton institute Link
Please Consider Signing The Petition to Ban water Companies
discharging raw sewage into water courses.
Petition: Ban Water Companies discharging raw sewage into water courses.
Ensure Water companies treat the sewage they are responsible for. Not discharge it into rivers and water courses…
SIGN HERE
