Agenda item

To consider information from the Environment Agency and Wessex Water to understand the level of pollution in the harbour and any progress on works to mitigate it.

The Chair introduced Jim Florey from the Environment Agency and Matt Wheelden from Wessex Water to address the committee and give their presentations to the committee a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

 

Jim introduced himself to the committee as Environment manager with the Environment Agency and covered several different agreements, one of which was Hampshire Haven as well as water quality and bathing water work.

He gave a quick overview of the work the agency did in relation to the water quality both monitoring and regulation in the harbour.  He noted the passion of the speakers on the topic and stated that the Environment Agency were also fundamentally passionate in relation to the quality and importance of the harbour as a natural and recreational resource. They were limited in the work they could do with legislation at that time with what they could and couldn’t do.  A lot of the work they did in the harbour was driven by the Water Framework directive which was an old piece of European legislation that was encapsulated into UK law.  The Agency was prescribed to use that legislation to understand and classify water quality which was based on ecological status rather than just chemical environment. They also had a statutory duty around fisheries specifically migratory fish such as salmon and sea trout.  They had a fish counter at Nat Mill which was one of the key counters within England that monitored Salmon populations, it was recording the numbers of salmon and sea trout going up and down stream. They were monitoring closely what was happening to the salmon populations.  Regarding bathing water monitoring that would look at water quality that would affect human health and look for bacterial markers such as e-coli, that monitoring would only be carried out on sites that were designated as bathing waters by the Department of Environment, food and rural affairs and once designated gave a statutory role to monitor and try to investigate where bacteria was coming from. 

It was stated that they were very focused on water company regulation, which included going out and visiting sites to pick up any issues and check compliance with permits.  They responded to pollution incidents but encouraged anyone who saw pollution in the harbour to report it into them either through the website https://www.gov.uk/report-water-pollution or by phone on 0800 80 70 60.  That was important as they were a finite resource and reliant on people phoning in information which helped them build intelligence and focus on next steps. It was explained that they also had the Water Industry Natural Environment Programme which set out what water companies should have done, where their asset investment would be going to improve water quality and the status of rivers, harbours and estuaries.  Christchurch Harbour was classed as moderate status which was to do with the nitrogen concentrations in the harbour. That was a key challenge as that could cause eutrophication which was the enrichment of plant life of primary production within the harbour.

 

Of the work that had been done there were signs that 56% of the nitrogen came from agricultural land. Withing the catchment of the Stour and within the Avon there was 11%from sewage treatment works, discharges that were permitted discharges from Wessex Water and 32% from ground water.  A lot of rivers including the Avon were ground water fed and those groundwaters had historic loading of nitrogen from previous practices.

It was not just Christchurch Harbour affected with those chemicals.  There was work happening within the agency to understand the environmental fate, pressures are them and legislation the government would need to put in place to control the chemicals in future. 

 

There was a positive news story around water trends, ammonia which was toxic substance had significantly reduced and the phosphate which was the other key nutrient in plant growth was also dropping.  Whilst nitrogen was a challenge there was further work planned to reduce nitrogen and improve the levels of phosphate further.  There was investment work the water company were trying to undertake to remove phosphates from their sewage treatment discharges going into the River Avon, although nitrogen was still a significant issue. Another challenge faced was algae growth which was invasive and linked to the excessive nutrients and climate change.

 

Bathing waters that were not designated were along the coast and closest to the harbour.  They were all classed as excellent and over the previous couple of years there was a lot of work which put in place additional treatment at the sewage works that discharged into the Stour and Avon to remove the bacteria, which sterilised using UV.  Bacteria that could cause harm to human health in bathing water would also be from agriculture, which was very significant in the harbour.  There were also other factors like birds faecal matter that would present in elevated bacteria levels.

The Environment Agency had been monitoring all assets that Wessex Water operated in and around the harbour, over the previous 18 months.  It was a rolling programme and they had no significant pollution incidents reported by either the water company or the public however that was continuing to be monitored.

 

Wessex Water then made their presentation.  They were set discharge permits by the Environment Agency for sites. All of their treatment works were given a cubic metres per day dry weather flow permit and a concentration permit, both of which they were below. They had phosphorus permits on upstream treatment works, they did not have nitrogen permits.  All focus had been on phosphorus to get down to 1 milligram per litre discharge which was about 80% removal of what the treatment works would achieve without phosphorus stripping. It involved chemicals including a coagulant called sulphate which moved the phosphorus from liquid to solid when then went off for digestion and used as fertiliser whilst the liquid went into receiving water.

 

A graph was shown that highlighted a story of how phosphorus was removed from the Hampshire Avon back in 2000.  Nothing was removed end of last year, 59% of the load was being removed through treatment works upstream.  It was stated that by 2030 the percentage of phosphorus removal would be 94%. Dorset Stour was designated as environmental delegation in 2019 as a nutrient sensitive river. In that river no phosphorus was removed in 2015, in 2025 around 76% was being removed and in 2030 it would increase to 86%. The big jump in 2025 was due to Holdenhurst, the largest treatment works on the Stour.  Wessex Water were working in the catchment with farmers as they also contribute to phosphorus and there was a scheme where the water company pay farmers to put in winter cover crops and other things that stopped phosphorus escaping into the rivers. 

 

Wessex Water then moved onto Public Health before the early 1970’s along the coast sewage went straight into the sea 24/7 without treatment then the coastal interceptor sewer was built in the lates 60’s early 70’s that took sewage to Holdenhurst and continuous discharged turned into intermittent discharges. The sources of E. coli and intestinal enterococci could come from humans either from treated sewage in continuous discharges or from privately owned treatment works. It could also have been from ovine and avian sources. Sewage works were primarily designed to protect the environment, where they were near designated bathing waters there was also ultraviolet disinfection.  There was a reduction in faecal organisms which depended on the level of treatment and continuously treated sewage sill had hundreds of thousands of bacteria per 100ml. There was concern about storm overflows near Christchurch harbour Holdenhurst was built for that, it was a 9,000 cubic metre tank that stored the contaminated rain so that it didn’t discharge then went back to treatment after the rainfall event.

 

They then moved onto questions from committee members.

 

When asked if they would swim in the harbour knowing the water quality, both Jim and Matt said yes.

 

A committee member who was also ward Cllr for one area affected thanked the members of the public for attending the meeting and speaking so passionately about the subject. They said the stour ran through their ward and they lived about 50 metres away from it and had seen the things that flowed down the river. It was stated that in 2009 Dorset Council’s Habitat Regulations Assessment identified 58 sewage treatment plants discharging into the stour catchment. That included many small unregulated rural works as well as the major plants.  The impact could be seen in excessive algae growth which caused eutrophication, fish and invertebrates dying.  They showed a picture on their phone of a diseased bass that had been caught in the harbour.  It was stated that they believed the protections that were on the harbour did not prohibit discharge and were not achieving the desired environmental outcome.  In response to that it was stated the Environment Agency believed they were doing everything they could within the framework that they operated. Work had been done through the water quality investment programmes with the water company. The work related to the improvement of treatment works which looked at phosphate and UV stripping or UV sterilisation to remove the bacteria.  Challenges faced were around climate change with water resources, river water levels, sea level rise and changes in relation to tidal elements. There was also a challenge around some of the new chemical products that end up in the treatment works, with no legislation to manage that at that time.  Agriculture was a key factor in some of the pollution, it was under a great deal of pressure trying to grow and provide food. They were trying to work in collective and focused ways to address the challenges.

 

The legislation around fines had changed and allowed the EA to issue fixed penalty fines where permits had been breached or there was a risk of pollution to the environment, then levy the fine to the water company or to others who caused the pollution.

 

The discussion then went too a Harbour Protection policy and any obstacles there were around creation of one.  It was stated it was a 2 pronged approach with what BCP needed to do and what government needed to do to strengthen regulation nationally. The portfolio holder had met with several key groups around the issues faced in the harbour.  The council had very limited responsibilities around water quality. There were partnerships involving the Environment Agency, Wessex Water and parts of the council, there were old refuse tips on the edge of Christchurch harbour.  That was a problem and flooding, and coastal risk team have been raising the issue nationally.

 

It was suggested that community groups could get involved in putting in a protection policy.  It was stated that the work they were doing was really valuable, the important thing was getting the waters accepted as bathing quality water and how that was achieved.  It was important for all users, not just swimmers, to get the water designated so the Environment Agency would have a duty to monitor.

 

It was discussed that any harbour policy would be looked at under the Local Plan.  A large amount of the water sat outside of BCP boundaries and working with the water catchment partnerships and other planning authorities and statutory agencies and DEFRA regarding their responsibilities.

 

Support was given by Wessex Water to develop a policy alongside precautionary source control principles.  Wessex Water were willing to work alongside BCP developing the policy.

 

Recommendation: The Environment and Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend that Cabinet expedite the development of a robust harbour protection policy as outlined and lobby the Govt to improve protection through the NPPF

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

The outline mentioned in the recommendation is as follows

 

Propose that what is needed is a robust harbour protection policy with:

•         a presumption of no net deterioration

•         planning policies requiring new developments to achieve neutrality or better

•           council Land Management practises that reduce pesticides and fertilisers

•         regular monitoring and public reporting

•         support for wetland creation and river restoration project

•           partnership commitments with water companies, the Environment Agency, neighbouring councils et cetera

 

Christchurch harbour needs to be made a material consideration in every relevant council decision on, for example, drainage, flood risk, recreation, highways and development

 

Yes it's ambitious, but if BCP want to be taken seriously as a national leader in Environmental Protection it needs to adopt a policy with an overarching objective to restore and maintain Christchurch harbour in favourable ecological condition, by ensuring that all council decisions contribute to improved water quality, reduced pollution and enhanced biodiversity; applying the precautionary principle where there is uncertainty.

 

AND we need this now, so that it can be embedded into the developing local plan.