Agenda item - Southern Water Investment: Response to Notice of Motion

Report of the Executive Director, Governance, People & Resources (copy attached)

7.1       The Chair told members that this item had been referred to the HOSC by the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee. The HOSC had been asked to invite the Southern Water CEO to a meeting. The CEO accepted this invitation, but had subsequently retired and the new CEO was unable to make the July meeting date. Southern Water were instead represented by Dr Nick Mills, Head of the Storm Overflow Taskforce. The Chair reminded committee members that they should restrict their questioning to the health and wellbeing implications of storm overflow.

7.2       Dr Mills gave apologies for his colleague Dr Toby Willison, who had been due to attend the meeting, but who had been called to an emergency in the Isle of Sheppey.

7.3       Dr Mills explained that the local sewer system takes both sewage and rainwater, discharging into the sea after treatment. There is sufficient storage capacity to manage most rainfall, but in very heavy rain sewers can fill with water to the degree that they would overflow causing flooding if there was not emergency discharge of the untreated contents into the sea. There is an online system to register these discharges. Southern Water is also piloting the use of ‘clever buoys’ which measure water quality in real time.

Southern Water has ambitious plans to reduce these emergency overflows by 80% by 2030. Traditionally, the water industry has tended to think in terms of creating major infrastructure: for example, building additional storage tanks or dedicated rainwater sewers. However, this kind of infrastructure is exceptionally, and often prohibitively, expensive to build, especially in urban areas. Another option is to optimise existing infrastructure, for example ensuring that highway gullies operate effectively (this is the responsibility of the Highways Authority rather than of water companies). A third option is source control: that is, to reduce the amount of rainwater that flows into sewers in the first place. Source control measures include rain-gardens, green roofs and domestic water-butts, all of which collect rainwater rather than having it run-off into sewers.

There is an important role for Planning here: e.g. to ensure that small developments and domestic extensions have source control conditions attached. It is also important to note that the amount of rainwater flowing directly into sewers has increased in recent years due in part to actions which have reduced urban resilience: e.g. people paving over front gardens for driveways. Major change is required if source control is to be effective: for example around 40% of surface water would need to be removed to reduce storm overflows by 80%.

7.4       In response to a question from Cllr Peltzer-Dunn on the effectiveness of the Brighton & Hove seafront storm-drain, Dr Mills told members that the drain has led to fewer and less impactful discharges. However, major infrastructure works like this will never entirely solve the problem and are also extremely expensive.

7.5       Cllr Grimshaw asked what warnings were given to people going to beaches about discharges into the sea. Dr Mills responded by noting that the 95% of storm discharge is rainwater, with only around 5% untreated sewage. In addition, discharges occur at least 2km out to sea. Furthermore, most storms and hence most incidents of discharge occur in the winter, when people are less likely to be in the sea. The threat to human and marine life is consequently low. In fact discharge into rivers poses more of a threat, although it is not the only threat to inland water quality (agricultural run-off poses a significant risk). It must also be recognised that in the short-term, the only alternative to discharge is to permit flooding. In the longer term, Southern Water is committed to investing to reduce discharge. People can find info here Beachbuoy (southernwater.co.uk) which provides and interactive map and email notification of discharges, and more could be done in terms of beach signage (e.g. having a QR code on signs that would link to the app). This would be a local authority responsibility.

7.6       The Chair asked a question about the health risks of flood discharge into the sea. Dr Mills responded that there is a risk from bacteria and pathogens in untreated discharge. However, dog faeces on the beach and bird droppings also pose potential risks, and in fact beaches in the UK are cleaner than they have ever been, now meeting EU and WHO minimum standards.

7.7       Cllr West noted that, if discharges did not pose a health risk, he thought it unlikely that Southern water would be committing £2 billion to reducing their incidence. Cllr West also asked how confident Southern Water was in achieving its 80% overflow reduction target, given the effects of climate change, particularly in terms of the increasing frequency and severity of storms throughout the year and especially in summer. In addition, Cllr West noted that even if an 80% reduction in discharges was achieved, this would leave 20% of discharges in place, with a detrimental impact on the environment and on people’s health. Members of the Council’s Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee (ETS) and signatories to a recent petition had demanded that a plan be put in place to reduce storm overflows to zero. Cllr West added that it was disappointing that the CEO of Southern Water had been unable to attend the meeting. He should be invited to a future committee meeting and encouraged to meet with the Leader of the City Council to plan how to keep beaches safe. Cllr West also asked what incentives would be offered by Southern Water to encourage source control. Dr Mills responded that moving to nearer 100% reduction in discharges would be prohibitively expensive, potentially costing around £600 billion (nationally). It is not really feasible to eliminate all discharge, particularly for the biggest storms, and there are other areas that Southern Water needs to invest in also: e.g. mitigating against increasing water scarcity. In terms of future-proofing against climate change, source control remains the best option.

7.8       In response to a question from Cllr John on DEFRA targets, Dr Mills told the committee that this was complex, but essentially DEFRA was demanding no more than 10 discharges per year and no harm caused by discharges. This is compatible with Southern Water’s plans for 80% reduction by 2030. A draft investment plan will be published in autumn 2022, with a final submission of plans to OFWAT in 2023.

7.9       In response to a question from Geoffrey Bowden on fines, Dr Mills told the committee that Southern Water had paid a considerable amount in fines for non-permitted discharges from 2010-2015. However, there was a change of management in 2017 and there have been no subsequent fines. The income from fines goes directly to the Treasury.

7.10    In answer to a question from Cllr McNair on flooding in Patcham and what more could be done to tackle blocked gullies and drains, Dr Mills responded that these are the responsibility of the Highways Authority rather than Southern Water.

7.11    Cllr Evans asked whether the culture at Southern Water had changed. Dr Mills responded that the illegal discharges into waterways between 2010 and 2015 were shocking, but the culture had changed significantly in recent years, driven by a new executive team.

7.12    In response to a question from Cllr Evans on the number of discharges off Saltdean this year, Dr Mills told members that he did not have this information to hand. However, it was important to understand that currently, the choice is between discharging storm overflow into the sea or allowing flooding; there is no other option in the absence of additional infrastructure or better mitigation via source control.

7.13    In response to a  query from the Chair asking where the intelligent buoys would be piloted, the committee was informed that the pilot sites were in Kent and at Hayling Island.

7.14    The Chair asked a question about who is ultimately accountable for discharge. Dr Mills responded that water companies will inevitably be held accountable as they are private companies and can raise capital for infrastructure investment. However, some of the measures that could be taken to reduce the incidence of discharges are the responsibility of the Environment Agency or of local authorities.

7.15    Cllr John noted that she would like the Southern Water CEO to attend a future meeting, and looked forward to more interaction with Southern Water at the HOSC or other council committees. Dr Mills responded that he was sure the CEO would be happy to talk to council committees: the company is committed to positive joint working with the local authority.

7.16    RESOLVED – that the report on Southern Water investment be noted.