From the relevant environment website.

Permit Numbers: 003174/FU/02, 201965, 200124 and 200126

Clean and healthy coastal waters matter to the people, wildlife and businesses that depend on them. We are now consulting on applications from South West Water Limited (SWW) to change its environmental permits for a new long sea outfall near Exmouth.

SWW has invested in improvements to its wastewater treatment system in Exmouth. One of the important changes is a new long sea outfall, around 300 metres south of Straight Point.

The new outfall moves treated wastewater, and storm sewage during periods of heavy rainfall, further offshore rather than into Exmouth Bay. We know this change alone is not enough. SWW will still need to meet their obligations as set out in the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP). But this is a positive step. It should reduce how often storm overflows affect Exmouth Beach bathing water and help improve water quality in the area.

Reducing the risk of pollution in Exmouth Bay
On 15 July, we issued SWW with a Local Enforcement Position (LEP). If SWW meets the conditions of the LEP, it can begin using the new outfall. We will not normally take enforcement action for operating outside its environmental permits while those conditions are met. This change should help reduce the risk of pollution reaching Exmouth Bay sooner rather than later. You can read more in our article further down on this page.

To make this arrangement permanent, SWW must obtain changes to its environmental permits. On Tuesday 4 August, a public consultation is open on those applications.

What is an environmental permit?

An environmental permit sets legally binding conditions that an operator must meet.

The environmental permits would set out how SWW must manage discharges from Exmouth Wastewater Treatment Works and other parts of its network. They would also set requirements for monitoring, reporting and demonstrating compliance.

SWW must show that its proposals meet environmental standards, comply with Environment Agency policy, and protect people, wildlife and designated sites, including shellfish waters, bathing waters and conservation areas. Its applications explain how it will manage and reduce environmental risks.

Before we make a decision, we must be satisfied that these measures are robust, proportionate and capable of protecting the environment.

How do we assess permit applications?

Our job is to make sure permit applications meet the requirements of environmental law and protect the environment and human health.

We will assess how the proposed discharges could affect the environment and protected waters, including Exmouth, Sandy Bay and Budleigh Salterton bathing waters, and Sandy Bay and Lyme Bay shellfish waters.

The discharge would consist of secondary treated sewage effluent, disinfected using ultraviolet (UV) treatment at Exmouth Wastewater Treatment Works. During periods of heavy rainfall, it may also include settled storm effluent.

We use technical evidence to assess whether the proposal meets environmental standards and legal requirements. This includes considering its potential impact on people, wildlife and protected waters.

Where appropriate, we also seek advice from other organisations to help inform our assessment.

What should you include in your consultation response?

Please focus your response on the changes SWW has applied to make to its water discharge permits, and the potential effects on water quality and nearby protected sites.

We can only consider comments that relate to these proposed permit changes.

We cannot take account of comments about:

• wider infrastructure changes proposed by SWW in Exmouth
• matters that fall within the Local Authority’s planning responsibilities
• parts of the permits that SWW has not applied to change

Keeping responses focused on the proposed permit changes will help us assess the application fairly and make decisions based on the relevant environmental evidence.

What happens next?

The consultation will close on 22 September at 11:59pm.

We’re working with Exmouth Town Council to hold a public engagement event in early September, held at the Town Hall. This will be an opportunity to speak with us directly, ask questions about the consultation and get support if you need help taking part. We’ll tell you more about this event soon.

When the consultation closes, we will review every comment we receive alongside the technical evidence submitted with the application.

Our permitting officers and specialist advisers will then assess the application and reach a draft decision.

If we decide to refuse the application, SWW will have the right to appeal.

If we are minded to issue the permit variations, we will hold a further consultation on our draft variations and draft decision documents. This will give you an opportunity to comment on the proposed permit conditions and see how we have considered the feedback received during this consultation.

We will keep interested parties informed as the process progresses. We will also consult again if any of the application documents change significantly.

How can you take part?

You can comment on these permit variation applications from 4 August 2026.

The application documents will be available to read through our consultation portal, Citizen Space, once it opens:

Citizen Space Consultation: South West Water Limited, 003174/FU/02, 201965, 200124 and 200126: environmental permit variations consultation.(External link)

We can only consider issues that relate to the environmental permit variations and our regulatory responsibilities. Our decision must be based on technical evidence, and we are bound by the Regulator’s Code(External link).

Consultation deadline

We must receive your comments by 11:59pm on 22 September 2026.

You can respond through Citizen Space or contact us using the details below.

Email: pscpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk(External link)

Post: Environment Agency Permitting and Support Centre, Land Team, Quadrant 2, 99 Parkway Avenue, Sheffield, S9 4WF

No group of respondents supports expanding Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay and dumping the remaining 455,000 Devonians in a rural rump. In fact it is the least favoured option with three quarters of respondents having negative views on it.

Why, then, was this option chosen by ex Minister Steve Reed in what is described as a re-balancing of power from a culture of “Whitehall knows best”?

Are we to have no say in this devolution?

Surely we need a rationale for ignoring a consultation quite so comprehensively?

Owl has been looking at the 69 page Devon, Plymouth and Torbay – Summary and analysis of consultation responses .

This reveals that whether you look at all the respondents or just look at specialist consultees or responses from organisations; splitting Devon into 4 unitaries based on massive expansion of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay is the least favoured option.

This summary and analysis is a difficult read particularly in making sense of the options. There are lots of data but little in the way of overall analysis.

Looking at the big picture, there are only three distinctly different concepts of how to eliminate the second tier district councils. Yet there three concepts produce five proposals. 

One concept comes from Devon County Council, Proposal 1.

A second comes from the eight districts, Proposal 3 (with proposal 2 as a variant)

The third comes jointly from Plymouth City, Exeter City and Torbay,, Proposal 4 (with proposal 5 as a variant).

The reason that there are two additional proposals reflects discord within proposers over boundary changes within the concept of their basic premise. Proposals 2 & 3 reflect a relatively small change relating to the Plymouth boundary adjacent to Dartmoor National Park. Proposals 4 & 5 reflect a rather bigger one relating to whether or not Torbay’s population should be expanded by 65%.

The Devon County 3 Unitary proposal keeps Plymouth and Torbay unitaries but rolls everything else into a single new Unitary.

The District Council 3 Unitary proposals keep Plymouth as a unitary but absorbs Torbay with three districts into a new Southern Devon Unitary. Exeter and the remaining four districts then form a new Northern Devon Unitary. The modified proposal tweaks Plymouth’s boundary around Dartmoor.

The Plymouth and Exeter 4 Unitary proposal expands Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay (by 65%) to form 3 unitaries with the fourth (Devon Coast & Country) covering everything else in a horseshoe from Kingwear to Seaton. The Torbay modification is to agree with Plymouth and Exeter except for the Torbay expansion.

The table below takes the average response across the multiple choice questions to provide an overall view of whether all respondents viewed a proposal positively or negatively. 

Overall, the responses demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal, keeping Plymouth and Torbay unitaries but rolling everything else into a single new unitary. 43% of respondents to the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 44% of respondents provided negative responses. 14% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. The 3 unitary (District Councils Main) proposal, keeping Plymouth as a unitary but dividing the remaining authorities into “Southern Devon” and “Northern Devon” unitaries, was the second most popular with 39% of respondents providing a positive response. The 4 unitary proposals, Plymouth and Exeter with the Torbay varient, were the least popular with 69% and 73% of respondents providing a negative responses.

Individuals living in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay 

The responses from individuals living in the area of Devon, Plymouth and Torbay demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal. 43% of respondents to the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 44% of respondents provided negative responses. 12% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. Preference in order is for 3 unitary (Devon County Council), 3 unitary (District Councils Main), 3 unitary (District Councils Modified), 4 unitary (Plymouth and Exeter) and then 4 unitary (Torbay). 

The responses from named consultees and organisations, however, demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (District Councils Main) proposal. But the two 4 unitary proposals remain at the bottom.

In due course Owl will publish extracts from the text comments raising all the issues about loss of local identity, urban/rural inequality, financial viability, service delivery disruption and fragmentation etc.

On the evidence put forward to support the necessary boundary changes the Local Government Boundary Commission for England observed that, across all proposals, while efforts have been made there was relatively little detail to support the specific boundary changes that were put forward.

Despite this Steve Reed pressed on with his agenda. – Owl