Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained it was hoped to hold these meetings twice a year.

Apologies were received from Councillor Stuart Wilson and Mike Overall.

The Chairman reported that since the Group last met, an exchange of correspondence between Councillor Martin Tett (Leader of Bucks Council) and Thérèse Coffey MP, had taken place particularly in respect of the Little Marlow site. A response from Rebecca Howell MP, had been received stating that the Environment Agency (EA) was carrying out an investigation into the Category 2 significant incident that occurred at the Little Marlow Sewage Treatment Works (LMSTW) in March 2021; this investigation was ongoing. The EA had been invited to this meeting but were unable to attend so had submitted an update report for the Committee’s information.

The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as a correct record.

An opportunity for public and Member questions. Please send questions, in advance of the meeting, to Liz Hornby at democracy@buckinghamshire.gov.uk

The Chairman reported that two questions had been received from the Marlow Canoe Club which had been answered, prior to the meeting, by Thames Water and were attached to the agenda.

The Chairman asked, on behalf of members of the public whether an alert system could be set up rather than having to look at the TW Electronic Discharge Map (EDM) to check.

Jake Morley, TW, responded and stated that having checked with the relevant team, he was informed that the EDM had replaced specific alert system via texts and appreciated that there was an extra step to look at the website to determine whether discharge was taking place. He agreed that he would feed back comments from the Canoe Club but a unified approach was the aim to let the public know so they could make their own decisions before using the waterways. It was believed that the EDM was the most appropriate approach.

A question could be fed back to the Canoe Club to ask how long they would want a text alert system to be place. Perhaps periodic updates, say every hour? If that were the case, then it was suggested that checking the website would be more efficient.

It was noted that the EDM was the first of its kind in the UK and it was the intention to make it more comprehensive to pick up issues such as water quality data although the timeline for this was known at this time.

Sam Kershaw commented that he had raised the question of whether recordings from the EA could be correlated with data from TW and whether any other authority was doing so particularly in terms of determining the impact of incidents on the quality of water for the wildlife and other water users. Andrew Scott, TW, responded that this question should really be directed to the EA. It was noted that water companies upstream and downstream do carry out monitoring on certain serious works.

Nick Rowcliffe asked whether consideration had been given to programming in an alert system from the EDM so that people could sign up for particular outfalls/alerts?

Jake Morley responded that TW was reviewing and understanding what could be done to increase date output. There was shortly to be an addition to the EDM, although that was, for the moment, confidential but that it would be publicised when they could.

In response to the statement about dogs becoming ill having been in the river, a request to co-ordinate an email chain with people who wanted to report these incidents to TW. Jake commented that TW and the EA would like to see these to record the incidents.

Philip Emmet asked what was the current capacity of the sewage works and what would the capacity be once the new housing came online within the next 18 months?

Andrew Scott responded that he did not have the complete answer. The population equivalent to the site was approximately 200,000 and there was no plan, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Committee noted the written update provided by Thames Water. They noted that the update was from 1 October 2022, although data for the whole of 2022 could be provided if requested.

During his update, Andrew Scott reported the following:

·         Since October 2022 there had been no spillage from the storm tanks meaning that everything that had gone into the river had been fully treated; to the River Rye and the Thames. This showed the size of the tanks involved particularly as the area had suffered significant rainfall since October with the wettest March on record. So everything had been fully treated and not blended as previously.

·         Following the incident of 18 months ago, a temporary pumping set up was being installed and due to be commissioned within the next 2 months meaning that the blending operation would take place quicker and be treated without fear of significant pollution. This meant blending some of the partially treated effluent with the final effluent to keep TW within consent. TW realised this was not ideal but was the best of a worse case scenario rather than either spill raw from the storm tank.

·         OHES were an independent laboratory and scientific company used by TW to do water and river sampling. They produce data to TW which then gets reported to the EA.

·         BOD was Biochemical Oxygen Demand. DAM was Discharge Alert Management. UWWR was Urban Waste Water which was a direct urban waste water directive which was a different set of sampling whereby TW had a 24-hour composite sample taken periodically on large sites. SAS was Surplus Activated Sludge.

·         In response to a question about whether there were any other overflows nearby without EDM or if Little Marlow, through the treatment works, was the only one in the area and a question about whether pollution events and storm dust discharges could be distinguished in the EDM data, particularly picking up anything coming out to the river and whether it was as a result of a catastrophic failure or overflow; specifically whether the 27 spills in 2021 were as a result of overflows or catastrophic events. In response to the second question, Andrew Scott responded that not all the flow through could be put through to treatment and therefore it went into the storm tank. The EDM monitor was situated at the back end of the storm tank and so only records any spill from the storm tank and not through the final effluent. This action was taken with the permission of the EA which was the best solution under the circumstances at the time.

In response to the first question, Andrew Scott stated there was a rolling programme and therefore all TW’s sewage works should have EDM’s fitted, the remainder would be some of the combined sewer overflows although the programme may not have been fully rolled out. All the currently installed ones were listed on the map. Andrew Scott agreed to obtain data from the network team or environment team to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Committee noted the Environment Agency’s written update.

The Chairman notified the Committee that there was an online directory on the Buckinghamshire Council’s website (link below) where correspondence could be seen along with progress on the Action Log.

https://buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13716

There was uncertainty around when a response from the EA would be received in relation to the March 2021 incident despite being chased for a response. Andrew Scott explained that that if TW had not been notified of formal prosecution procedures as yet and that investigations were still ongoing and therefore would not be able to discuss the incident at a meeting such as this one and neither would the EA.

The Committee noted the Action Log update.

The Chairman indicated that a date in October would be arranged and members of the Committee would be notified.

Joy Morrissey requested that correspondence with DEFRA be forwarded to her in relation to the March 2021 incident. The Chairman agreed.

ACTION: David Watson