Agenda item

River Lugg water quality

To provide an update on water quality within the River Lugg, subcatchment to the River Wye SAC

Minutes:

The Chair thanked officers for the reports provided, which were taken as read. Four agreed objectives were identified and read out:

 

-        Receive an update on the current apportionment of the sources of nutrient overload on the River Lugg.

 

-        Understand progress in delivering the special plan for the River Wye.

 

-        Update on activity to improve the water quality of the River Lugg and evaluate the progress on developing new wetland areas on river improvement and their impact on housing development.

 

-        Further understand the environmental, social and economic impacts of poor water quality and pollution in the River Lugg, including the ability to plan and build new housing.

 

 

  1. The committee sought clarity on the areas affected by the moratorium.

 

  • The Representative from the Herefordshire Construction Industry Lobby Group pointed out that there was a map of the impacted area available on the council website, but that in essentially the moratorium covered 40% of the northern area of the county.

 

  1. The committee was keen to understand more about the processes and criteria involved in the moratorium being lifted.

 

  • The Phosphate Mitigation Lead explained that Natural England set the targets as to what was an acceptable level of nutrient within the watercourse - the targets varied from river to river according to the ecological and geological conditions of the river involved.

 

  • Natural England assessed river conditions every three years. Current levels within the Lugg exceeded acceptable targets significantly and reports showed no indication of a notable reduction in pollution levels so far.

 

  1. The committee enquired about the monitoring processes involved in assessing river quality and how targets were set.

 

  • The Phosphate Mitigation Lead explained that monitoring was undertaken by the Environment Agency and that the condition of the rivers was reviewed on a three yearly basis and took into account all of the monitoring figures, which were aligned with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee guidance.

 

  • The River Wye had been downgraded to unfavourable-declining in its last review, which was because there hadn’t been any sign of improvement, however, monitoring continued in the interim and there had been informal feedback indicating a small level of recovery in the River Wye.

 

  • The Trustee and Director CPRE pointed out that average readings in the River Lugg were now massively over the targets. All the data and a report from Lancaster University indicated there was no ability to reduce the levels that would allow it to obtain a favourable status. The Director suggested that the only way the moratorium would be lifted in the short term would be through a change in policy rather than a change in targets.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment pointed out that the impact of the ‘Dutch case’ ruling around negative impacts on special areas of conservation would need to be addressed through habitats regulations to determine if changes could be made.

 

  • It was noted that the housing sector had done its bit in reducing the problem and that 82.37% of the diffuse element was coming from agriculture.

 

  1. The committee praised the weekly testing being carried out by citizen scientists and volunteers, and enquired if it could be shared more widely via the council website.

 

  • The Head of Environment Climate Emergency and Waste Services provided an assurance that greater signposting towards WyeViz data could be included in the council website along with a regular summary of the data for councillors and other interested parties.

 

  • The Representative from the Herefordshire Construction Industry Lobby Group noted that bringing the catchment into a favourable ecological condition had proved almost impossible and that plans put forward to the Nutrient Management Board over the last five years contained actions that parties either couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver.

 

  • The representative noted that the much-delayed Diffuse Water Pollution Plan (DWPP), being written by the Environment Agency (EA), and due to be published in March 2025 was required to contain actions to return the rivers to favourable conditions. Concerns were raised that a request for an update on the plan made by the Nutrient Management Board to the Environment Agency had been declined as it wasn’t something the Environment Agency wished to share until publication. This response and apparent lack of transparency had puzzled members of the Nutrient Management Board as the board would ultimately have to oversee the plan.

 

  • The Representative from the Herefordshire Construction Industry Lobby Group voiced concern and frustration that The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act provided relief for housing development in other areas, but excluded Herefordshire due to its link with Welsh Water (rather than an English water company).

 

  • The Phosphate Mitigation Lead provided details on the proposed Nature Restoration Fund being work on by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), which would require a change in legislation and would act as centrally based pot of funding to put in mitigation where it was considered to be most effective. The council had been working with central government to help bring forward that scheme and had applied to act as a pilot on it.

 

  1. The committee raised concerns about the time being taken to approve/refuse private mitigation schemes and enquired if the process could be speeded up where possible.

 

  • The Head of Environment Climate Emergency and Waste Services explained that the council was committed to supporting and bringing forward these schemes, but they needed to be able to deliver certainty in regards to the standards that were required. Schemes were often complex in nature, although the process was scrutinised by Natural England as a statutory consultee.

 

  • The Phosphate Mitigation Lead pointed out that each application was considered on its own merit and was required to have a habitats regulations assessment undertaken, to go through the planning process. There was an Environmental Advice Service in place to look at private mitigation schemes to assist in ensuring relevant legislation was followed.

 

  1. The committee asked what could be done in assisting with the systemic change that was required to enable positive progress.

 

  • The Co-chair Farm Herefordshire noted that the majority of farmers acknowledged that agriculture was the biggest contributor of phosphate into water, but the problem had been around for many years and that a recent Re-focusing phosphorus use in the UK food system (RePhoKUs) report meeting had suggested that in recent times agricultural phosphate input had been declining, but it was estimated that even if no further phosphate was applied it would take an estimated 50-60 years before a meaningful reduction in phosphate entering the river was seen.

 

  • The Co-chair Farm Herefordshire explained that massive amounts of money and investment, as seen in Denmark and Holland, would be required to make significant changes to the agricultural system in the UK and the knock-on effect on the landscape and environment of taking livestock out of the equation would have to be carefully considered before making any changes.

 

  1. The committee asked for an update around the progress of delivering the special plan for the River Wye.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment explained that the plan put forward by Defra in the latter days of the previous government had not involved enough quality consultation with people on the ground and didn’t meet the needs of the council and other relevant parties. The council had previously engaged with Defra to direct activity towards more useful action on the ground, particularly in relation to the £35 million, which had been earmarked for developing/purchasing technology to deal with poultry-related issues, but could realistically be dealt with by the sector without the need for public money.

 

  • Talk around the plan had stopped with the change of government, but a recent cross-county meeting with Huw Irranca-Davies (Deputy First Minister of Wales), Monmouthshire and Herefordshire MPs and Emma Hardy of Defra meant that a conversation on the topic was once again taking place at ministerial level.

 

  1. The committee enquired why the River Lugg and its tributaries appeared to be more negatively impacted by phosphate overload compared to the River Wye.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment explained that part of the reason was related to volume. The River Lugg was narrower and shallower when compared to the River Wye and dilution was a factor.

 

  • It was pointed out that the targets were different for the two rivers, one particular peculiarity was that the targets for the Wye differed between Wales and England, so the Wye was failing on water quality up to the point where it came into and then left Herefordshire. This demonstrated there was a risk of being misled about the biological health of an ecosystem by simply focusing on target data.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment discussed a recent rivers conference with farmers, which had provided an opportunity to hear from farmers about how they were bringing about improved practice and what they were doing to farm differently and sustainably. There was a continued need to understand and support the sector during this difficult transitional period.

 

  1. The committee suggested more conferences of this type would be helpful and enquired what it could put forward as a recommendation to the executive in order to help  the catchment area.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment explained that actions relating to the improvement of the catchment area would be included within the forthcoming Diffuse Water Pollution Plan and the Wye Catchment Partnership Plan.

 

  1. The committee considered whether lessons could be learned and innovative solutions developed by looking at how the council approached systemic issues in different areas and sectors. Children’s Safeguarding was given as an example of where the council played a role at multiple levels, with people taking on specific roles to carry out specific tasks. This involved the council operating within a system of many stakeholders and thinking strategically about how it could influence the system in a positive manner.

 

  1. It was suggested that looking at other areas and sectors might potentially provide opportunities for introducing innovative methodology and frameworks to help tackle and resolve the problems within the catchment.

 

  • The Trustee and Director CPRE stressed the importance of measuring outcomes. At one Nutrient Management Board meeting, Natural England stated it did not measure the outcome from the advice it gave to farmers that it provided and funded The Director felt it was crucial that all stakeholders and partners measured and understood outcomes and changed their approach if they were not successful.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment described a significant problem was that with plans such as the Nutrient Management Plan and Wye Catchment Partnership Plan, you had: data, evidence, recommendations on appropriate actions to take and anticipated outcomes, but unfortunately there was rarely any funding available to implement these plans. In the case of the Catchment Partnership Plan Herefordshire Council had stepped up to support it, as it recognised the importance of the partnership. Funding was available from various sources, but in many instances it could not be used for the delivery of plans.

 

  1. The committee discussed the economic and social aspects surrounding poor water quality and the impact of the moratorium in relation to planning and building new housing within the county.

 

  • The Representative Herefordshire Construction Industry Lobby Group stated that the Lichfield report published by the Home Builders Federation suggested that the moratorium was having an increasingly detrimental social impact, deepening the housing crisis, damaging local economies and posing a threat to many business especially small and medium sized enterprise (SME) builders.

 

  • It was estimated that Herefordshire Council had potentially lost out on around £60 million revenue from council tax, new homes bonuses and section 106 agreements. The moratorium meant that effectively 40% of the county was paralysed, which had resulted in lost jobs, a reduced tax base to fund services and an impact on every economic metric within the county.

 

  1. The committee raised concerns that the moratorium was impacting the creation of social housing and felt like a tax on development.

 

  1. The committee noted the commitment within the Council Plan to support the right house in the right place and create conditions to deliver sustainable economic growth across the county, but wondered how the potential of the 40% of the county covered by the moratorium could be unlocked unless it was done through the Local Plan.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment stated that conversations had taken place with the government as to what could be done to change circumstances, but in terms of making plans there continued to be a second guessing of where legislation might go next.

 

  • The Representative Herefordshire Construction Industry Lobby Group praised the mitigation work that had been conducted, especially the wetlands project, but suggested that in the long term the need for such mitigation was indicative of an overall failure to restore the catchment.

 

  1. The committee enquired if there might be any benefit from a government levy - on businesses producing manure/chicken manure - similar to the tax on plastic packaging.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Environment stressed that there was a need for strong regulation covering pollution and damage being done to the environment.

 

  • The Co-chair Farm Herefordshire highlighted that adopting a ‘polluter pays’ approach was complicated by having to determine who the polluter was. Ultimately it would come down to personal responsibility, but not everybody could afford to, for example, drive hybrid cars and eat responsibly produced food.

 

 

At the conclusion of the debate, the committee discussed potential recommendations and the following resolutions were agreed.

 

Resolved

 

That the executive should:

 

1.     engage directly with Natural England and the Environment Agency to achieve the lifting of the housing development moratorium as soon as possible;

2.     ask for early consultation with Herefordshire Council and the Nutrient Management Board on the specific Diffuse Water Pollution Plan, for the Lugg and its tributaries, the Arrow and the Frome;

3.     engage with Government to ensure adequate funding for the actions in the Diffuse Water Pollution Plan;

4.     arrange another Rivers Conference focusing on the Lugg, Arrow and Frome;

5.     prioritise processing of strategic planning applications to progress private mitigation and to reiterate the request to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to participate in the pilot scheme for the development of the nature restoration fund;

6.     invest, with partners, in a specific innovation process to consider approaches that have been successful in different locations or sectors and identify new approaches worth testing in the nutrient management context; and

7.     with partners, identify key outcomes that will indicate the success of actions to move towards river restoration and agree how these will be collected and reported.

Supporting documents: