Minutes:
Sally Harvey - Environmental Agency Area Director and Richard Penn – Environment Partnership and Engagement Officer were in attendance.
1. Mrs Harvey presented the Pollution and Aquatic Environment presentation to the attending members. It was highlighted the importance of limiting pollution within the county and discussed the following aspects:
· The current levels of Chronic, Historic, Current and acute pollution present.
· Permitted and unpermitted discharges to the environment.
· Pollution incidents and their categorised impacts.
· Potential sources of pollution from sewage, agriculture and others.
2. Mr Penn discussed the second phase of the presentation, the challenges faced in measuring water quality within the water framework directive (WFD) and defined locations such as bathing waters (BW). Water quality aspects:
· WFD-Waterbody level assessment-chemical and ecological
· WFD-Classifications published every three years.
· BW-Defined locations.
· BW-Published each year with a duty to inform the public of the results.
3. The monthly WFD monitoring and three-year reporting would inform the response levels of the Environmental Agency and identify any sources of pollution. Mrs Harvey shared the designated coastal bathing areas slide in Kent and the methodology used to measure these sites. Ratings were provided annually over a four-year average.
4. Mr Penn raised the complex picture of multiple water utilities throughout Kent and the role of OFWAT as the financial regulator and the key role it plays in water supply and sewage infrastructure. DEFRA and its involvement were also noted upon within the presentation, the pivotal role that Natural England plays in the removal of waters from the environment and its works with the Environmental Agency were also extensively discussed.
· PR19 Periodic review of environmental improvements average total cost of £5.4 billion. PR24 due to end in 2030 investment to reach £22 billion.
· Further funding secured from government to improve inspection regimes.
· Inspections to increase from 4000 in 2024 to 11000 by 2027 targeting the largest areas of failures. A dip before improving was noted to occur.
5. Mr Penn closed out the presentation by discussing the security of supply and the contributing aspects to infrastructure failure. Future industrial investments were also discussed to support the demand for new homes.
6. The Cabinet Member and Officers responded to questions of detail and noted comments, which included the following:
· Members queried on the four-year average methodology used for the classification of bathing waters and noted that an isolated incident can impact this classification and had a detrimental impact on the local community. Members further asked if an option to retest as soon as the incident had passed. Mrs Harvey responded that testing occurs within the statutory requirement, noting that a consultation on extending the bathing water monitoring testing threshold was well underway. It was clarified that any one-off anomalies in testing at site with clear rationales could be ignored.
· Members highlighted the current pollution levels on the Medway and asked if there was any way in which organisations could supplement the Environment Agency samplings. Mrs Harvey acknowledged the fragmented approach in testing and added that partnership options were in place or would be explored with charities.
· It was discussed if any of the current Environment Agency initiatives would combat highway run off, tackle farmers’ fields pollution and address sewage contaminating water courses throughout Kent. Mr Penn explained that highway run off had been identified as a chronic source of pollution. Agricultural practices were reviewed with Natural England and more concise testing regimes would be in place. Sewage companies would be monitored via the Water Industry Investment Programme (WIIP) and were subjected to fines from OFWAT.
· Walden Beach in Sheppey had been included in the designated bathing areas list, and it was discussed if the Environment Agency had been aware of the active tipping issues in the area, notably concerning the tipping of blue asbestos. Members further queried the Environment Agency’s slow response to fly tipping in a local woodland.
· The Environment Agency had been aware of the tipping events that have occurred in Sheppey and a restraining order had been awarded to combat the issue with some success. Distribution of tipped items have remained a concern although water quality remained excellent in the area. The woodland fly tipping was subject to a restriction order in January 2024.The woodland, however, was situated in private ownership and this had limited how much the Environment Agency could restrict access to the land.
· Members enquired on how the Environment Agency would support the new Governments growth agenda for housing. Two areas of focus were currently being undertook with support to planning authorities with statutory advice ongoing and the continued regulation of industries to ensure the support of growth is completed in a correct manner.
· The Chair asked if there was enough resourcing to support the growth of required developments encompassing on how the Environment Agency could gain statutory enforcement powers to coordinate with partners to move more quickly when dealing with criminal activities. Mrs Harvey acknowledged there was a need for the powers of the Environment Agency to be strengthened for improved civil sanction powers.
· Mrs Harvey added that there was a national crime agency within the Environment Agency, who worked closely with the Police and HMRC. Additional inspections would also be in place to combat illegal activities.
· Mr Penn responded to the earlier housing questions and stated the limits on water efficient houses being constructed would be monitored. The reduction on leakage and consumption had been reviewed with work undertaken with regional planners. The Water Investment Programs would look at new at innovative ways to provide water.