The Government made a preemptive move to thwart Labour’s pollution debate on Tuesday by announcing their own, improved, plans.

But it amounts to very little: 

A target published last year will be made  legally binding one  But the goal in question is for 2050.

Yes you read it correctly 2050, more than a quarter of a century in the future. Hope you’re still around to see this through and be able to swim safely in our rivers and seas Simon!

Targets on curbing the spills from storm overflows, before that, will not yet become law. I.e. will remain just targets.

The Conservatives have overseen underinvestment by the water industry and a gutting of environmental regulation capacity. 

If Coffey and colleagues want to avoid public frustration over water spilling into a general election campaign, they will need to do better.

Sewage spill law is progress but Tories must do more

Adam Vaughan www.thetimes.co.uk

‘Shameful”, “revolting”, “disgusting”, “scandalous” and an “absolute catastrophe” — MPs from across the political spectrum queued up yesterday to see who could express the strongest outrage about water pollution, and argue about who personally cared the most about ending the problem.

Labour held a Commons debate to put Tory MPs in the lose-lose position of backing an opposition bill on sewage solutions or being seen to vote against it. Largely, the parliamentary exchange generated more froth than clear water.

Jim McMahon, the shadow environment secretary, berated ministers for the economic and environmental hazards of a raw sewage spill roughly every two and a half minutes. Thérèse Coffey’s rejoinder as environment secretary was that we know about the problem only because of monitoring her party brought in, and to attack Labour’s record on water quality in Wales. However, the stunt did have the welcome effect of pushing the government to make a pre-emptive strike. As The Times was first to report, Coffey promised to enshrine in law a key target for effectively ending the sewage spills that outraged MPs. That is good news.

This newspaper’s Clean It Up campaign has been calling for stronger regulation, so making a target published last year a legally binding one is progress. But the goal in question is for 2050, a conveniently pain-free option for today’s government. Other, earlier targets on curbing the spills from storm overflows will not yet become law.

The targets in the storm discharge reduction plan fall short in other respects. The Times wants to see the earlier goals, for 2035 and 2045, either brought forward or strengthened. Some water bosses, such as Liv Garfield of Severn Trent, agree.

Sewage spills from storm overflows are very visible and rightly anger people. But they are far from the only reason why only 16 per cent of England’s rivers and waterways are in a good ecological condition. Yesterday’s pledge and Coffey’s recent Plan for Water suggest the government is starting to get serious about tightening the screws on water companies. But on the pollution of rivers by farming, Coffey and colleagues still have huge strides to make, as Britain’s three biggest conservation groups have pointed out.

Yes, the Conservatives improved monitoring. But they also oversaw underinvestment by the water industry and a gutting of environmental regulation capacity. If Coffey and colleagues want to avoid public frustration over water spilling into a general election campaign, they will need to do better.

Adam Vaughan is environment editor

But let’s put this in perspective.

The £2.1m fine covers offences over four years, or £0.5m/year

As far as SWW is concerned it’s actually peanuts. Simon needs to get his head around their accounts.

Susan Davy, who is chief executive of South West Water’s parent company Pennon, is paid a base salary of £456,000, but with her bonus, incentives and benefits the company’s latest set of accounts (2022) show her total pay was bumped up by an additional £1.1m in bonuses for the year. Between them the top three directors took more than £2m in bonuses.

So, the fine equates to a single year’s bonus payments for four years of offences and what about the dividends?

South West Water is the second worst investor after Yorkshire Water, spending only 39% of the funds available since 2020. – Owl

Alan Quick www.teignmouth-today.co.uk 

SOUTH West Water has been fined more than £2 million for a series of environmental offences across Devon and Cornwall spanning a period of four years.  

It is the largest ever fine imposed for environmental offences in the region.  

Delivering her sentence, District Judge Matson said: “Incidents of pollution will no longer be tolerated by these courts” and fined the water company £2,150,000 today, April 26.

The EA has shown that there were numerous common deficiencies in the implementation of SWW’s management systems which have contributed to each of these offences. 

Fish killed because of pollution discharged into the River Axe at Kilmington. (EA )

The company had pleaded guilty at an earlier court hearing and District Judge Matson, sitting at Plymouth Magistrates’ Court sentenced the company on 13 charges – six for illegal water discharge activities and for seven offences of contravening environmental permit conditions.

The offences took place between July 2016 and August 2020 at Lostwithiel, Kilmington, Crediton and Torpoint sewage treatment works and the Watergate Bay sewage pumping station.   

The water company was ordered to pay £280,000 costs and £170 victim surcharge.

Inaccurate and inadequate operational procedures led to harmful chemicals escaping from SWW sites on more than one occasion which resulted in significant environmental damage including sites at Kilmington on the River Axe and in Crediton on the River Creedy.

Following the spill at Kilmington, thousands of fish died in the River Axe including some protected species.

Failure by SWW to operate its assets and processes in an effective manner was also demonstrated at Lostwithiel in July 2016, where raw sewage was pumped into the River Fowey for more than 12 hours despite control room alarms indicating there was an issue with the works.  

Not responding adequately to alarms the same year resulted in an illegal discharge from the Watergate Bay sewage pumping station in August 2016. The discharge lasted for more than 35 hours and a sample taken from a stream at the beach showed E. coli levels to be 2,000 times higher than the level that would be classified as poor.

On two occasions effluent from the Torpoint sewage treatment works was pumped into the St John’s Lake Site of Special Scientific Interest – this also lies within the Plymouth Sounds and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation. The site is designated due to its variety of bird life and invertebrates.  

Today’s sentence “shows the shareholders and management of South West Water the importance of compliance”, said the judge.

Alan Lovell, Chair of the Environment Agency, said: “We welcome this sentence. Serious pollution is a serious crime – and we have been clear that the polluter must pay.

“The Environment Agency will pursue any water company that fails to uphold the law or protect nature and will continue to press for the strongest possible penalties.” 

Clarissa Newell, Environment Agency environment manager for Devon and Cornwall said: “Failure to apply basic environment management principles has caused pollution incidents at some of the most scenic locations in Devon and Cornwall including bathing waters and designated Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). 

“Having alarms to alert you that sewage is spilling is no good if no action is taken. Enforcement is intended to prevent these things from happening again and ensure South West Water improve and meet the expectations placed on it. 

“Like all water companies, South West Water has a responsibility to operate in accordance with permit conditions and to prevent pollution. Polluters must pay and the Environment Agency will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that they do.”  

An Ofwat spokesperson said: “The actions of South West Water have rightly been condemned and we welcome the penalty imposed by the court.

“This stands as another example of regulators using all available means to hold water companies to account. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the Environment Agency and across Government, to ensure companies meet the standards expected.”

(Revised 10.30 27/04/2023)

Tories Protecting Our Environment. Really?

According to the Tory leaflet for the Woodbury and Lympstone ward for the upcoming district elections the Tories  are going to protect our rivers our landscape and environment.

Maybe the 2 prospective conservative candidates  Ben Ingham and Cheryl McGauley should start asking their friends to assist them, rather than working against them.

The current goings on at Greendale Business Park owned by FWS Carter and sons who`s directors  financially support the Tory party don’t seem to be helping their declared aims unfortunately.

There are a number of challenges with unlawful development, and enforcement issues at the Business Park that over the last 10 years has seen over 60 retrospective applications and a large number of enforcements.

The most recent anomalies that FWS Carter and sons have managed to create are:

Greendale Business Park Covid Centre

The Large Covid Vaccination Centre at Greendale Business Park which most residents visited during the pandemic is now being used for truck parking, caravan storage/occupation, all without any planning consent.

There is a current live planning application for this area to use either an NHS walk-in Centre or business space (application No. 22/1893/FUL) which is due to be considered in June, but there is no application for it to be used by other tenants which would require a change of use application.

NHS covid facility was built under government emergency powers (which did not require planning approval) but there is prior history to this extension to the business park which was built illegally in around 2015 but had to be removed following a retrospective application was refused, both by the Planning Authority and upheld by the  government Planning Inspectorate! The decision was subsequently upheld in the High Court. The land was then required to be returned to agricultural use, but the owners simply covered the concrete apron with soil and grassed it!

At the time of the NHS Covid centre being built the planning authority did inform the NHS and Greendale the significant previous planning history but they decided to proceed due to the covid emergency.

Greendale Farm Shop

Further down the road at the continuous expanding Greendale Farm Shop a new Covid Drive Thru Vaccination Centre has been built without the benefit of planning permission and FWS Carter and sons are now seeking retrospective consent for its retention under application No. 23/0298/FUL.

It is not clear  what the intentions of the NHS are regarding the vaccination centres at these two locations are. The farm shop new centre is described as a “replacement” and yet the description of development for the existing large vaccination centre also requires its “retention” as a vaccination centre!

It would suggest the NHS is keeping their options open by retaining some form of lease on both centres. Their intention appears to be to use the new drive-thru centre for the roll out of the spring booster jabs to over 75’s and those in the most vulnerable category while retaining an option on the main vaccination centre should it be ever needed in the future.

These applications are submitted by the land owners and not by the NHS which suggests that the NHS is being offered either or both sites for delivering the vaccination programme, but it is questionable whether the cost of renting either of these premises is cheaper than a normal mobile vaccination centre in an HGV in a shopping centre car park is not made clear.

At present it is difficult to justify these developments which are both outside agreed employment and development zones but in the open countryside. The question is why the NHS or Greendale think it should be granted contrary to the Local Plan and National Planning policies.

Hogsbrook Farm

On the hill overlooking the Business Park is Hogsbrook farm where there seems to be illegal  storage of vehicles in a field. There is an open enforcement case  that the use of an agricultural field is unacceptable for this purpose.

The landowners FWS Carter and sons are required to either make a retrospective planning application to retain it and in so doing justify why it should be allowed to remain contrary to the policies of the local plan or enforcement action will require the removal of the vehicles.

Clyst St Mary

Further afield close to the village of Clyst St Mary a field hedge boundary has been removed which is contrary to the approved planning application.

There had been some initial activity last year which was finally stopped, but only after substantial damage had taken place to an orchard and treeline with mature oaks that was removed without a tree felling licence. FWS Carter and sons have agreed to stop work again at the site under the threat of a temporary stop notice.

PS Simon Jupp MP has not only received donations from FWS Carter and Son  but rents his office from them.