Newland Court residents' objection to Council plans for the estate

Residents of Newland Court wish to draw attention to proposals for their estate which are another example of in-fill. They have asked Wembley Matters to publish a copy of the letter they are sending to Brent Council. Publication does not indicate Wembley Matters support for every point made but it is important that residents' voices are heard.

NEWLAND COURT AND GRENDON GARDEN RESIDENTS V BRENT COUNCIL

LETTER OF OBJECTION TO PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT

 

7th July 2022

I have been a resident at Newland Court for over 30 years and I am taking this opportunity to write to you on behalf of the majority of residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens regarding Brent Councils proposal to knock down the garages in Newland Court and build 7 town houses in replacement (4 x 3 bed, 3 x 2bed). I have seen the proposed plans and discussed them with both residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens at length. We have collectively concluded that the plans have lots of flaws in them and we will petition against it and seek legal advice.

 

I have been looking at the plan designs for the town houses that Brent Council want to build in Newland Court and these do not give measurements of the lengths and widths of the houses, only the height. However I can see that the plan gives the lengths and widths of the gardens of all the residents’ in Grendon Gardens but does not give the distance in length between the houses being built and the fencing that separates the houses and their gardens. The only measurements of the houses are in sq metres which only explain size in area therefore is quite misleading. 

 

 

The residents of Grendon Gardens trees in their gardens lean over and grow across the fencing into Newland Court by up to 3 metres in some areas so there is no way you can build houses without cutting half of one side of all the trees that are on the Newland Court side of the fencing and also as you build the foundation of the houses downwards, you will be destroying most of the roots of the trees. Basically, you would need to remove most of the trees to build houses on the proposed site. This will have a significant impact on the trees and the greenery that gives us privacy and creates a peaceful and scenic view to the area now. 

 

 

In our collective opinion there are lots of flaws in the new development planning and design. Not only would it not be practical if you had to destroy or remove the trees to be able to build houses in the areas specified as this is a conservation area but this would ignite uproar especially with Greenpeace campaigners and Environmentalists’ alike. It would create anxiety not only with the residents of both sites who will be impacted, but more specifically Newland Court residents who are worried about the effect it would have on their mental state of mind. 

 

 “-No trees to the properties of Grendon Gardens will be removed. An arboricultural

impact assessment will be submitted as part of the planning application-

 -The new houses will not directly overlook the properties on Newland Court and

Grendon Gardens, as the windows have been designed to face south, east

    and west to avoid any overlooking-“ 

 

Which is a deception as the 7 proposed houses’ windows will be facing south overlooking our flats, and will invade our space and privacy. The present paving and green space will be further reduced by building the houses outwards south and both new and old buildings will be overlooking each other quite closely, which will have a negative affect our everyday lives. So our privacy will be taken away from us yet I see in the plans that the new houses will have their own courtyard and bin area. Newland court will have an even smaller bin area than we have now and there are currently not enough bins at present to service the 60 flats here and yet your plans are to reduce them in further. 

 

 

This is going to cause a great deal of chaos as in the plans the bins will sit in a built area on the greenery further restricting the little green space we do have and possibly causing the perfect environment for infestation of rats which is already causing fear and great concerns within the tenants at Newland Court. The reduction in Bins and the site where you plan to locate them will be extremely unpleasant and unacceptable right below one blocks kitchen windows for us to smell all the rubbish constantly. You may not be aware that there is always an overflow of the bins towards the latter part of the week so rubbish will be exposed and probably scattered as there will be more rubbish and less space to service 60 flats.

 

 

At present we do not have enough bins to service the 60 residents’ at Newland Court so we cannot imagine the frustration and inconvenience reducing them will be like. Another issue which has been raised by most of the residents is that because there are no security gates and not enough street lighting in communal areas and cameras, fly tippers come and fill up our bins with building waste materials and other stuff as soon as our bins have been emptied which happens frequently and they to do this because there are no consequences for them to worry about. They come not only at night but in the day time too and I have been attacked and almost run over when I have tried to confront them.

 

We have had rat issues for many years and both Newland Court and residents of Grendon Gardens have been significantly impacted by the frequent problem because at present we always have over flowing bins. It is simply unreasonable and inconsiderate for our bins to be further reduced unless collections are done twice a week instead of once a week for both regular general waste bins and recycling bins. This is very unlikely to happen as they sometimes only come once a fortnight, hence the growing problem. Almost all the residents at Newland Court, especially those who have lived here for 10 years or longer have suggested you fit proper security gates at both ends of Newland Court to prevent our homes and vehicles being vandalised or burgled, our families and kids being harassed by drug dealers or mugged on our little estate.

 

Everybody usually using Forty Avenue /Forty Lane use Newland Court as a cut through to The Avenue or other neighbouring streets or as a meet up or stop off for eating and drinking or drug smoking or dealings right under our noses. This has intensified in the recent years and elder residents and children cannot walk freely because of the lack of security and bad lighting.  Between the last two blocks (42 to 48 and 55 to 60 Newland Court) it is easy to see the broken gate where the padlock goes missing every 4 to 6 weeks and a raised wall area where everybody sits and meet up to drink, eat, shout and either deal or take drugs. At night it is very dark in that spot and have asked Brent Council for lights to be put on the walls in that area numerous times.

 

There are currently limited and inadequate parking spaces for the residents of Newland Court and since Brent council deployed an inept parking firm (WING) to control the parking, at weekends it is free to park which is extremely inconvenient to residents as we can’t find parking spaces. On weekend event days, event goers can freely park so that residents on Newland Court have to keep parking on nearby roads and have to keep moving their cars around during the day until a space is available if at all. Also WING only sends a parking attendant on weekdays 2-3 times a month.

  

We currently have spaces for at least 30 cars which are not enough and there are at least 5 disabled residents that I know of however there are no disabled parking bays at present in Newland Court and in your new plans parking spaces seem to have reduced significantly to approximately 12 parking spaces. A total of 12 car spaces to service 60 flats and 7 new houses is very inconsiderate. This will cause more problems between residents, more double parking and possible congestion in the local streets as well. How can you possibly justify the few parking spaces as reasonable? 

 

What are your suggestions for the new residents in the proposed 7 new houses and where are the present residents of Newland Court going to park their cars? I guess that is why Brent Council stopped charging us for permits from 2022 to soften the blow of your new plans of building these new homes. You have also rented a Portacabin for the cleaner taking up 2 car parking spaces at a rental cost of £220 per week which has been parked there for about 2 years now at the cost of £22,880 so far. It runs on a diesel generator and when it is running, it emits diesel fumes which rises and comes through our windows for us to inhale. What happened to Brent Council going greener???

 

Having lived at Newland Court for more than half of my life I could write a book on how Brent Council have wasted money and resources on the unnecessary wrong things and not spent money on the right things which I have already highlighted earlier. Another example is when someone stole the inner plastic bin from the main food waste bin so that the refuse collectors refused to empty it. The food waste bin filled up with food waste till it overflowed and the stench that it caused which attracted rats as big as cats. After dozens of calls complaining about the issue it still took over 6 months to be replaced. Just simple things like that which takes Brent Council so long to resolve.

 

We have had to endure loads of disruption over the years with building works when the double glazing was installed. When the kitchen and bathrooms were renovated and recently when the roof was replaced and every single time the predicted time scale over ran for months. The scale of this proposal would be hugely disruptive to the residents in Newland Court, Corringham road and Grendon Gardens for at least the next 2-3 years. No matter what time scale you give because this project is massive and residents are worried about the detriment to their mental health and wellbeing which will be impacted from the stress of noise and the disruption to the area.

 

At present Brent Council have been building a tiny block of 8 flats in a tiny plot at the entrance into Newland Court on the corner of the Avenue and Corringham road by Mason Court. This has not disrupted the lives of the residents of Mason Court because it is to the side of Mason Court but has taken almost 2 years and is still not finished. It was supposed to have been finished by March 2022 and has been hugely disruptive with delivery trucks blocking the entrance into Newland Court several times and destroying the recently laid new paving. Brent Council have since erected new large wooden stumps to prevent trucks from parking on the pavement.

 

Brent Council says that there is a shortage of land to build on yet Brent Council have allowed private investors to buy up all the land around Wembley stadium and the surrounding areas to build unaffordable skyscrapers which are bought by foreign investors who rent them out to only those who can afford them. Why didn’t Brent Council build housing on some of the land at least knowing housing crisis have been here for years and years??? Brent Council moved their headquarters to the Civic Centre (at a cost of about £90 million but rumoured to be a lot more) from the former Brent Town Hall on Forty Avenue and sold the land which is now a private French School. That land could have been used to create 100’s of council homes.

 

There are numerous little plots of open spaced land scattered across Brent that could be used for homes. There are lots of derelict homes and then of course the former Unisys building on the corner of Harrow Road and the North Circular that has stood empty for 25 years in legal disputes. Over the years we have seen 2 petrol stations and a pub disappear from Forty Avenue only to be replaced by private residential flats and the Sattavis community centre on the corner of Forty Avenue and The Avenue which was promised to be a community centre for the locals but has turned out to be a hardly used private hire hall used only once a month or every couple of months. Why didn’t Brent Council buy up those plots when they were up for sale and build homes????

 

Our suggestion is that most of the unused garages be knocked down and sufficient parking spaces made for residents of Newland Court including a few disabled bays as there are at least 5 disabled residents living in Newland Court. A proper security gate at both entrances into Newland Court installed and the side entrances locked permanently to prevent not only vehicles but pedestrians cutting through the estate dumping their rubbish in our bins which includes residents of Corringham road who causally walk into Newland Court with their bin bags. This would also stop fly tippers filling our bins up in the middle of the night. Sufficient lighting and security cameras like other estates have. We need to be heard and we need you to take every angle into consideration. Thank you for your consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Marc Etukudo

 

On Behalf of Newland Court and Grendon Garden residents.

 

 

 

1.    This derelict house in Barn Hill with overgrown shrubs even leading to the front door. It has looked empty and not lived in for at least the last 2 years. This house could be used to house a family unit.

 

  

2.   The Sattavis community centre on the corner of Forty Avenue and The Avenue which was promised to be a community centre for the locals but has turned out to be a hardly used private hire hall used only once a month or every couple of months.

 

 

3.   Another derelict house on the corner of Wembley Park Drive and Wembley Hill Road that has also stood empty for over 15 years. Looking like an eyesore with another excuse of an ongoing legal battle.  

 

 

 

4.   The Unisys buildings that have lain derelict and unused for over 20 year in a costly legal battle between Brent Council and the Bridge Park/ Harlesden community. 

 

 

Isn’t it time that Brent Council and the Bridge Park/Harlesden community stopped wasting time and money on this long legal battle and come to an agreement or split the land equally or are we going to see another 20 years of to and fro of legal actions. A redevelopment would improve the environmental quality of the area and create an attractive gateway to the borough and Bridge Park. There are numerous other homes or sites in Brent that lie empty and could have homes built on.

 

 

  

Cross-party and non-party call for Brent Council to play its part in tackling Wealdstone Brook pollution

 'Nauseating' - Wealdstone Brook earlier this year

 

Wembley Matters has covered the long-running issue of sewage and other pollution of the Wealdstone Brook that runs through parts of Harrow and Brent. Environmental campaigners, local residents and local political parties, have joined together to put pressure on the Environment Agency and Thames Water to take action.

 

As a member of Brent Green Party I welcome this cross-party and non-party approach to an important local environmental issue that affects everyone regardless of party.

 

At Full Council on July 11th Kenton resident John Poole will be make a deputation about the matter and later a motion from the Conservative Group, which I hope will received support from across the council chamber, will ask Brent Council to do all in its power to ensure the brook is cleaned up by the relevant agencies,  rectify wrongly connected foul sewers and consider legal action.

 

This is the Conservative Group Motion

Pollution of the Wealdstone Brook

 

The Wealdstone Brook, which runs in open water, starts in Harrow, runs through Woodcock Park in Kenton and then into Wembley past all the new developments around the stadium before reaching the River Brent, has been heavily polluted with untreated human sewage and toxic chemicals for some considerable time.

 

The Wealdstone Brook has nothing living in it – it is effectively a dead river.  The toxic smells which have come from liquids evaporating at low temperatures from the Brook water are nauseating and residents who live close to the Brook or have been walking close to the Brook in Woodcock Park, have been feeling physically sick as a result of these noxious odours.

 

 

Thames Water, who have been investigating the sources of the pollution, have admitted liability for cleaning up the pollution.  They have agreed that the pollution of the Wealdstone Brook is one of the worst they have come across but as a result of the shared responsibility for the maintenance of the Brook as it passes through Brent, Brent Council and the Environment Agency must also share some of the responsibility.

 

As a result the residents living nearby have expressed their disgust at the state of the Brook and consider that Brent Council should have declared this to be a ‘Major Incident’ once it had reports of untreated human sewage, toxic gases and smells vaporising from the water of the Wealdstone Brook.

 

This Council therefore resolves:

 

To do whatever is necessary and within the Council’s power to ensure that the water in Wealdstone Brook is cleaned up.

 

To do what the Council can to ensure that the agencies concerned take the necessary steps to detect and rectify all wrongly connected foul sewers which run into the Brook and to put them right at no cost to Council tax payers, in Brent.

 

To seek legal opinion as to whether legal action can be taken against the agencies that have responsibility for ensuring that the Wealdstone Brook is free of pollution if there is no immediate rectification of the problem.

 

 

To ensure in light of a serious risk to public health and as a matter of urgency the necessary actions are taken as soon as possible to put the foregoing into practice. 

 

Councillor Michael Maurice

 

Kenton Ward

UPDATED WITH LIB DEM AMENDMENT: Backbench Labour councillors call for Brent Council to declare a 'Cost of Living Emergency'

 

Cllr Ishma Moeen

 

UPDATE: The Liberal Democrat Group has tabled an amendment to this motion HERE

 

The new Labour councillor for the new Wembley Hill ward, Ishma Moeen,  is moving a Labour backbench motion at  Full Brent Council on July 11th calling on the council to declare a Cost of Living Emergency,

Have set out the current situation affecting residents and measures the Council has taken it, focuses on demands it should make on the Government. 

The only other Council action recommended is:  To conduct a full review into what the council can offer Brent families struggling with the cost of living emergency and ensure that the voice of local people is at the centre of its response.

I am surpised it does not mention support for the Brent Right to Food Campaign. 

 

Leaving No One Behind: Declaring a Cost-of-Living Emergency

This Council notes:

That Brent and its residents are struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis.

 

For many residents this will have been the most difficult decade they have ever experienced.

In April 2022, the Government increased National Insurance by 1.25%; this is projected to cost the average Brent resident an additional £295 per year.

On 1 April 2022 Ofgem increased the energy price cap by 54 per cent, with the average standard tariff energy bill set to increase by up to £693 per year.

Inflation is now confirmed at 9% with the fastest rate of increase for 40 years.

 

Inflation has been higher in London than the national average.

In the meantime, at least 25% of the people who work in Brent earn less than the real Living Wage for London. The LGA estimates that without adequate long-term funding the collective increase in inflationary costs faced by English councils this year will be £2.4bn, growing to £3bn in 2023-24 and £3.6bn in 2024-25.

Local councils up and down the country are the last line of defence in supporting residents during the cost of living crisis.

Figures show that over 5,000 residents presented at Brent Hubs in need of food aid between April 2019 to January 2022.

Between December 2020 and March 2022, the Council distributed £5.5m through grants to Brent residents, supporting the families of approximately 12,000 eligible children and young people with supermarket vouchers during each of the school holidays.

The Brent Resident Support Fund (RSF), has been in place since August 2020: it has supported 2,658 applicants with a total of £5.2 million in cash grants.

 

This Council believes:

Many of the services we all rely on are in a state of managed decline, starved of sustainable funding.

Inflation is not going to come down overnight and the impact on our local services could be disastrous. In Brent, our council has already cut nearly £200m from our budget, severely curtailing the services offered to residents.

In our local NHS Trust there are over 50k residents on the waiting list for care.

Residents are seeing tax hikes, energy bills soaring and petrol and food prices rising drastically.

Beneath the cost of living crisis, there is a mounting mental health crisis and a housing crisis that never went away.

The average home in Brent costs more than 16 times the average annual salary in the area, 9 times above the English average.

Given the seriousness of the situation this council believes it should speak with one voice to those in power and raise the alarm on behalf of residents across each and every one of our 22 wards and declare a “Cost of Living Emergency”.

This Council therefore resolves:

To declare a “Cost of Living Emergency”.

As part of this, to call on the Government to take the following practical steps in order to help our resident’s incomes stretch further.

· To stabilise the foundations of our economy by providing emergency support for business, reducing their costs and limiting the price rises they pass on to consumers.
· To reverse the planned increases to National Insurance, protect our residents by reducing the burden of VAT on everyday goods; and increase welfare support in-line with the rate of inflation.
· To immediately use revenue from a windfall tax on oil and gas producers to help Brent families with their energy bills.
· To provide security for the winter and beyond by providing the financial support necessary to retrofit and insulate homes, while looking to the future with commitments to utilise more renewable sources of energy in the National Grid.
· To put in place a longer-term approach to economic growth and security, under- pinned by an industrial strategy.

 

To conduct a full review into what the council can offer Brent families struggling with the cost of living emergency and ensure that the voice of local people is at the centre of its response.

Councillor Ishma Moeen
Wembley Hill Ward

 

SOURCES OF COST OF LIVING HELP FOR BRENT RESIDENTS

 

COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT

RESIDENTS SUPPORT FUND

DISCRETIONARY HOUSING BENEFIT 

Bust of Charlie Watts of Wembley presented to Brent Council. Where should it be displayed?

 

Charlie Watts centre (Brent Archives)

Charlie Watts lived in a prefab in Pilgrims Way, on the edge of Fryent Country Park, and local legend says his mother bundled him off to fields behind the estate to practise on his drums. The prefabs  were demolished to make way for the present estate on which I live so there is no obvious house for a blue plaque - but one is richly reserved.  Philip Grant has written about Charlie's Wembley connections HERE.

 

 The bronze bust of Charlies Watts

 

Meanwhile Brent Council has received a bust of Charlie and is looking for a suitable home:

 

Charlie Watts mega-fans presented a bronze bust of the late Rolling Stones drummer to Brent Council on Friday 1 July.Stones icon Charlie Watts grew up in Wembley and was fondly known as the “Wembley Whammer”. After he passed away in August 2021, fans thought it fitting to honour him in his hometown. 

 

Sculpted by artist Sissy Piana, the bust was donated to Brent Council at a small ceremony attended by The Mayor of Brent, former Mayor of Brent Lia Colacicco, Founder of the Rolling Stones fansite SHIDOBEE with STONESDOUG, Doug Potash and organiser and commissioner of the artwork, Richard Jozefiak.

 

Cllr Abdi Aden, Mayor of Brent said:

 

We are delighted to be entrusted with this wonderful sculpture that pays homage to iconic drummer Charlie Watts. Rolling Stones fans across the world, have worked tirelessly to pay their respects and we at Brent Council are pleased to play our part in honouring his legacy.

 

The Rolling Stones have strong roots in Brent, with Watts growing up in Wembley and the Rolling Stones performing in Wembley as far back as 1982. This bronze bust acts as another addition to the deep cultural impact the band has had in Brent as well as the rich musical history of our borough.

 

Founder of Rolling Stone fansite SHIDOBEE with STONESDOUG, Doug Potash sad:

 

With Charlie Watts gone, many of our members wanted to find a way that we could honour him. I was approached by SHIDOOB Richard Jozefiak with an idea; he had contacted sculptor Sissy Piana about creating a bronze bust of Charlie and proposed that we raise the funds and find the proper place for it to be displayed. 

 

When I announced this, donations immediately poured in and everyone was thrilled that they were part of having this bust of the Wembley Whammer created and given a place for it to be honoured thanks to the Brent Council.

 

Discussion are underway about where to display the bronze bust.

 

Philip Grant has provided the photograph below to accompany his comment  on this blog post.

 

 Charlies Watts playing with the Jo Jones Seven in the late 1950s

LETTER: Cllr Butt challenged over building on green space

 Dear Editor,

I am accusing the Leader of Brent Council, Cllr.Muhammed Butt (Lab Tokyington), of telling an untruth yesterday when he said that Brent Council was not building on green spaces at the end of Lidding Road HA30YF here in Kenton and the green land space next to it known as the Legion Hall site both of which are right next to a SINC (a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) and the Wealdstone Brook. The approved Planning Application 21/3248 Lidding Road Garages, Lidding Road, Harrow, IS on green spaces and I challenge the leader of Brent Council, Cllr.Muhammed Butt to join me in inspecting the site and let us agree the facts.

 

 John Poole,

Kenton, Harrow, HA 0UT (L.B.of Brent)

[Full address supplied]

Latest updates from Thames Water on Wealdstone Brook pollution

 

Fuel Poverty Action: 75% of those polled support the right to free energy to meet basic needs

 From Fuel Poverty Action

 

The present energy pricing system is leaving thousands each year to die of cold  and despite a government hand-out millions are in fear of next winter.

 

Fuel Poverty Action has long been advocating a free band of energy to every household to cover basic needs like keeping the lights on, keeping warm, and running a fridge. This would be paid for by higher prices for people who use more than they need, by windfall taxes  while prices and profits are so high, and by a permanent end to the subsidies paid to fossil fuel corporations, now worth billions of pounds.

 

This plan has the support of over 400,000 signatories on a change.org petition.  

 

And now nationwide polling has found that three quarters of the population support the right to free energy to meet people’s basic needs.  Only 10% opposed it. The poll was conducted by ICM, with a representative sample of 2000 British adults,10th - 12th  June 2022.

 

An even higher number – 81% – support abolition of the standing charge – the daily charge of around 44p per day on every customer’s energy bill, which must be paid regardless of how much you use.  Only 8% want this charge to stay.  

 

FPA have written to Ofgem about the way the costs of failing suppliers have been loaded onto the standing charge - the part of the bill that nobody can avoid - which FPA says is a “grotesque injustice”. 

 

Fuel Poverty Action’s Ruth London says,

 

The standing charge is even higher in some parts of the country, and it mounts up frighteningly quickly.  People on prepayment meters are often forced to find money to pay this charge before they can even turn the lights on. People who cut their use down to the bone in a bedsit end up paying more per unit of energy than those who are heating a mansion.

 

Energy For All would reverse this perverse system that incentivises waste and clobbers the people who can least afford it. It would finally give energy security where we most need it - at home. And it would press the government to finally fix the UK’s notoriously badly insulated housing and turn to cheaper, more sustainable sources of energy, like solar power and wind.

 

 

 

Professor Chris Whitty et al: Sewage in water: a growing public health problem

It is not often I publish government press releases but this one LINK has not had much publcity. It is important in the light of the recent pollution of Wealdstone Brook and attempts to get local public health officers and their councils to sit up and take notice.. 

A joint opinion piece from Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, Jonson Cox, Ofwat chair and Emma Howard Boyd, Environment Agency chair

 

One of the greatest public health triumphs of the last 200 years was separating human faeces from drinking water. People now take this for granted but it was the basis for preventing cholera, typhoid and other bacterial and viral diarrhoeal diseases that killed millions in major epidemics. Largely achieved through remarkable feats of engineering over 2 centuries, only vaccination matches it as a public health intervention for preventing infectious diseases. When bacteria from human faeces (coliforms) are ingested, it increases the risk of significant infections including antibiotic resistant bacteria. Keeping human faeces out of water people might ingest remains a public health priority.

 

Tap water in the UK is safe. No-one expects river water to be of drinking standard, but where people swim or children play they should not expect significant doses of human coliforms if they ingest water. Raw sewage from storm overflows and continuous discharge of waste containing viable organisms from sewage treatment works is an increasing problem. This is a serious public health issue for government and regulators and it is clear that the water companies are not doing enough. The public health dangers are in addition to the ecological and environmental impact which forms the basis for much regulation.

 

Use of our rivers for recreation and exercise is something to celebrate and encourage. Children have always played in waterways and always will, irrespective of what notices are put up next to them. People of all ages use freshwater waterways such as rivers for recreation including swimming and various forms of boating. During lockdown many people took to swimming in rivers and have continued since. Our rivers, seas and waterways should therefore be free from sewage to reduce risk to the public. There are 2 major issues to tackle. Both have solutions.

 

The first is raw sewage discharge from the sewage network and in particular storm overflows. As the name implies this should be exceptionally rare. The engineering logic of storm overflows is that if the sewerage system is at risk of being overwhelmed by storms or atypically intense rain, sewers get too full and can back up into homes or overflow into streets. To prevent that, storm overflows act as a safety release valve, but were intended only for exceptional circumstances when the public would be unlikely to be using rivers.

 

After the Environment Agency required the water industry to install monitors on overflows, data shows that their use is now not exceptional. In some cases, up to 200 discharges a year are occurring. This is obviously unacceptable on public health grounds. Whilst zero discharges are technically achievable the cost of this may not be justified; to reduce the frequency down to genuine storms should however be a minimum expectation. It certainly is the expectation of the great majority of the public, including those who do not themselves use rivers recreationally as measured by polling data. Nobody wants a child to ingest human faeces.

 

There are solutions to getting storm overflows back to only functioning only in very high rainfall conditions. These involve better operational management, innovation and investment. This is rightly seen as the job of water companies. As a start, 4 have recently agreed to reduce their overflows to an average of no more than 20 discharges a year by 2025 – but we need to go much further and Ofwat and the Environment Agency will hold companies to account for this delivery.

 

The second major issue is coliforms from the continuous normal discharge from sewage works. Whilst raw sewage is not discharged into waterways from these, viable bacteria and viruses are, as part of normal operations. Eliminating discharges of coliforms from sewage works upstream of popular recreational areas will go a long way to reducing human faecal infective organisms downstream. This has been achieved for seaside beaches at coastal works by use of ultraviolet treatment. Other forms of less energy-intensive treatment are in trial or development: these options need to be pushed forward by companies with urgency.

 

It will inevitably require investment to boost resilience and capacity in our sewerage system. But it is not just a question of money – it needs preventive engineering, better sewer management, innovation and commitment. We welcome recent initiatives by some companies, but a lot more needs to be done. Ofwat asked all companies to produce an action plan setting out how they will rapidly improve river health. As they finalise plans, they must demonstrate a commitment to public health that matches public expectation. We have 2 stretches of river in England and Wales with bathing water status. There are over 500 in France.

 

We recognise management of sewers is made more difficult by plastic wet wipes flushed down toilets which congeal together with fats poured down drains to form fatbergs that block sewers and cause avoidable use of the storm overflows. Ensuring all of us put wet wipes in bins or, better, that only rapidly biodegradable wet wipes are available would immediately assist in reducing avoidable outflow problems.

 

However, the principal public health responsibility for ensuring human faeces and viable human faecal bacteria do not get into waterways people might use recreationally, rest squarely with the water companies and their directors. Ministers have already signalled they want significant action, requiring companies to deliver a multi-billion pound programme to tackle storm sewage discharges. Companies should take the initiative and go faster. Regulators will hold companies to account. 

 

It is time for wastewater companies to act. It will be a matter of choice if they do not.

• Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England
• Jonson Cox, Chair, Ofwat
• Emma Howard Boyd, Chair, Environment Agency