Agenda item

All Councillors have been invited to attend the meeting for this item of business.  Members will receive a presentation from Anglian Water and the Environment Agency.

The Assistant Director, Operations and Commercial explained that Resort Services worked closely with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency regarding bathing water quality.

The Chair welcomed Adam Worley from Anglian Water and John Daniels from the Environment Agency to the meeting.  Members received a presentation from both organisations on bathing water quality.  Copies of the presentations are attached.

The Vice Chair read out correspondence received from Councillor Beal as set out below:

“As you are not doubt aware all the drainage from Hunstanton promenade goes directly onto the beach.  This includes all the waste water from every trader on the promenade.  I am constantly told from the Portfolio Holder and Officers of the Council that I’m overplaying the matter and the waste and hazard materials have little or no effect on sea life or bathing water.

This I find hard to believe as I have ice cream machines and I know when we clean the machine every week there are four cycles of cleaning with different types of waste going into the system including in the last cleaning cycle five gallons of steriliser and all this from the multiple of ice cream sellers must have effect on the quality of the sea water.  Also all the chemicals that are used to keep the kiosks clean are all going down the promenade drains pictures supplied.  Every trader in the town has to pay water rates so how come seafront traders don’t but if it’s claimed they do then why are they allowed to dump it into the sea.

It is felt by lots of the public that a water collection should be made from the seafront traders (by bowser) and pay water rates like other traders do.

So what I need to know is that you can assure me, the residents and tourists that contaminated water that is being dumped on our beach has no effect on wildlife, bathing water or the blue flag water quality as said by officers and including seafront officers. 

Thank you for your attention and look forward to an answer.”

The Assistant Director explained that Resort Services had operational responsibility for the Promenade and did not have any evidence that all traders were doing this.  He explained that he was aware of isolated incidents, all of which had been followed up by a visit to the premises by the Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Team or Environmental Health.  He concluded that on occasion it had happened but not every trader could be considered irresponsible in this respect. 

John Daniels explained that if there was evidence of waste water being disposed onto the beach then this could be investigated.  He also explained the prosecution powers available to the Environment Agency.  Adam Worley explained that there was no direct evidence of poor bathing water quality as a result of the issues raised by Councillor Beal. 

John Daniels explained that if it was clean water, which included diluted disinfectant etc. this should not have an impact on water quality, however it was when water sat for a long period of time in the drainage network it could go septic which could have an impact.

The Chair invited comments and questions from the Panel as summarised below.

Councillor Parish made reference to water quality in Heacham and how the increase in caravans and the amount of visitors could have an impact on water quality.  He also referred to the water treatment works and stated that there was local concern about the capacity of this, especially when further development took place, and he asked Anglian Water to be mindful of this in the future and the impact that this could have on bathing water quality.  Councillor Parish also commented that poor water quality could have a link to the lack of dog waste bins available.

In response to a question from Councillor Parish regarding classification categories, John Daniels explained that the wording was from the European Directive.  Councillor Parish asked if officers were satisfied of the rating of ‘sufficient’.  It was explained that sufficient meant that it was safe to bathe, but of course it would be better to have as higher rating as possible.

Those present were reminded that the warnings were included in the ratings and these warnings were based on rainfall and weather predictions. 

Councillor Ryves addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34.  He asked if cleaning chemicals would show in the measuring of water quality.  Adam Worley explained that it was bacteria and septic which was being measured.  Councillor Ryves also asked why there was no evidence of water waste from promenade kiosks.  The Assistant Director explained that officers visited the kiosks annually and asked about waste arrangements.  If sufficient arrangements for disposal were in place this would be accepted, unless evidence was produced to the contrary.  The Assistant Director reiterated that there had been evidence of occasional situations when waste receptacles had overflown in peak season, but it was accepted that this could be a one off.

Councillor Ryves raised concern that kiosks were only visited annually.  He encouraged self-policing and needed evidence that it wasn’t happening.  The Assistant Director explained that complaints were taken seriously and where evidence of a breach was confirmed a further visit had been conducted.  He explained that resources were limited and the response needed to be proportionate.

The Vice Chair, Councillor Bower explained that the area was self-policing and businesses did pass on their concerns to her and she worked with Resort Services to resolve issues.

The Chair asked for the view of Anglian Water and the Environment Agency on the issues relating to the seafront kiosks.  Adam Worley explained that unless run off went into their assets, there was no power for Anglian Water to get involved.  John Daniels explained that the Environment Agency dealt with criminal law and did not get involved in civil matters.  He explained that fines could be issued only if sufficient evidence was collected.

Councillor Bullen commented that he was surprised that there was a lack of avian pollution given the amount of wildfowl in the area.  He also asked if John Daniels and Adam Worley would bathe and allow their family to bathe in waters in West Norfolk.  They both stated that they would and explained that it was generally just at certain times of the year that the results were lower.  It was also explained that the best time to bathe was in peak sun as it improved the quality of the water.

The Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Health, Councillor Nockolds referred to previous surveys undertaken and explained that the weather could have an impact on water quality and other factors were ever changing.  She felt that all organisations were working hard to ensure good bathing water quality.  She also referred to the clean beach award.  Councillor Nockolds referred to the Wash and asked if the various ports and shipping activity could have an effect on water quality.  John Daniels explained that the contamination recorded was local, and it was unlikely that port activity would have an effect as the Wash was a vast area which meant a lot of dilution.

Councillor Squire commented that she had no confidence in the water quality and she had suffered from health issues as a result of bathing.  She also stated that testing should be carried out during the winter as people did go in the water all year round.  She also stated that it was unacceptable for sewage to enter water systems and the sea.  John Daniels commented that work was continually being done to try and improve water quality.  In response to a further question it was explained that the nearest ‘excellent’ rated beach was Sherringham.  Old Hunstanton was on the border of becoming ‘excellent’ however some results had been unusual and had resulted in a lower rating.  It was also explained that results were dis-counted if a warning was issued not to swim.  Signs would be put up when warnings were in place. 

In response to a question from Councillor Bubb it was explained that there were nine bathing waters classified in Lincolnshire with six classified as excellent and three as good.

Councillor Ryves asked if data, which did not include the dis-counted results was available.  John Daniels explained that raw data was available and the dis-counted results were not taken into consideration until the end of the season.  It was explained that information was available on the Environment Agency website.