Agenda item

To receive a verbal update on the feedback from the Executive (5^th June 2024 meeting), to the Scrutiny recommendations report from the special Water Quality in Somerset meeting held on Friday 26^th April 2024.

Executive Report - Scrutiny Recommendations Water Quality.pdf (somerset.gov.uk)

The committee noted the response to the Scrutiny recommendations report.

In summary, the Chair asked that those members of Scrutiny Climate and Place Committee who would like to sit on a Task and Finish group (Scrutiny recommendation 4) should look to arrange a members-only meeting, to discuss if and how the debate can be taken forward, as soon as possible.

The Chair invited Jamie Jackson, Governance Manager to read aloud a statement submitted by Mr David Orr (Supplement Pack 1 Page31-32).  

Kate Murdoch, Strategic Manager Planning Policyand Implementation thanked Mr Orr for his statement and gave her responses to his statement as follows  

“We elect Councillors to make Somerset the best place it can be. You are in charge of policy, Officers advise. 

The current nutrient neutrality policy is, I feel, an act of unnecessary self-harm which is damaging Somerset.”  

Nutrient Neutrality is not policy it is national advice from Natural England as the Statutory Nature Conservation Body.  Local authorities are the ultimate decision-makers, but they are required by law to consult NE as part of the habitats assessment process, to give NE’s advice considerable weight, and to provide cogent reasons if they depart from it. 

“The KC draft opinion was received by this Council. A verbal and undocumented meeting took place, when the KC was instructed that all Wessex Water headroom at their works had been used up by previous planning permissions. The draft opinion and the meeting notes are withheld.  

In my opinion, the officers attending the verbal briefing of the KC were not senior enough. Nor was Wessex Water, as a strategic partner, allowed to participate as subject matter experts. Planning Officers are not qualified water industry engineers.  

The Council’s view that all the headroom at Taunton’s wastewater works has been used up, makes no sense.” 

This is covered in the Executive Report under paragraphs 19-23 and will also be covered in the presentation. https://democracy.somerset.gov.uk/documents/s31968/Executive%20Report%20-%20Scrutiny%20Recommendations%20Water%20Quality.pdf 

However, if evidence is provided to demonstrate improvements to the Taunton wastewater treatment works have been provided to ensure the future housing growth is mitigated for to ensure a nutrient neutral impact on the Ramsar sites, rather than just accommodated to ensure operation within a permit limit, the Council will consider this evidence.  

“The District Council planned for 17,000 new homes by 2028. Of the 18,000 held-up homes across Somerset, 10,000 lie within Taunton Deane.  

I regard the KC opinion made after the confidential verbal briefing as unsound.  

I recommend that this Council work collaboratively with Wessex Water to transparently document the headroom across the catchment area. Then instruct the KC to re-assess his advice following a new written instruction based on that documented and verified work.  

The Habitats Regulation requires a precautionary approach but doesn’t give a number. In 2024, despite improvements, there is still an assumption that 100% of phosphates from new homes gets on to the Moors and Levels daily, then another 20% is added.” 

The 20% buffer is addressed in the Executive Report in paragraphs 7-11. The buffer is included in all the national nutrient load calculators and is based on Natural England advice as the Statutory Nature Conservation Body. The buffer ensures the mitigation measures satisfy the precautionary approach legally required by the Habitat Regulations. 

“Since 2018, Wessex Water has removed a huge amount of phosphates from their daily discharges. In Taunton, the level of phosphates entering the river Tone is just 7% of what it was 6 years ago.  

The Council owns the phosphate mitigation calculator. Amending the precautionary factor in the spreadsheet from 1.2 to 1.0 is a very quick task, retains a precautionary approach and reduces the cost of phosphate credits. Your recommendation is sound.  

The Officer briefing to the Executive, I feel, doesn’t accord enough courtesy and respect to Dr Clegg’s voluntary and unpaid work these past 4 years, when no-one else was measuring phosphates out in the real world.” 

The Executive Report and briefing is respectful of Dr Clegg’s voluntary research.  However, the Council needs to acknowledge that Natural England’s feedback on the research means that we cannot rely on Dr Clegg’s research as cogent evidence to justify taking an alternative approach to either the 20% buffer or the quantity of phosphates mitigation required going forward.  The Council needs to ensure that the evidence it is seeking to rely on will stand up to scrutiny if legally challenged. Dr Clegg himself has acknowledged the limitations of his research.   

“Somerset has a unique, man-made river system which will allow a confident Council to set pragmatic nutrient neutrality policy that respects our unique place”. 

The committee noted the public statement,along with the officer response. 

 The Chair invited Cllr Ros Wyke, Executive Lead member for Economic Development, Planning and Assets to introduce item 7.  

Cllr Wyke addressed the committee with the following statement - 

“I would like to first of all thank the Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the executive for holding a dedicated water quality session on the 25th of April. It was a very informative session. In fact, we've had had a lot of information against well presented to us today, but it's very evident that the research being carried out. 

And is underway continually on a nutrient pollution on the levels of walls and the role of the various partners operating within the field is quite complex and as is the need for additional research is probably becoming the more we know, the more we know we don’t know. I particularly wanted to thank Doctor Clegg and his team of volunteers for the water sampling they've undertaken on sections of the river parrot to help understand the nutrient pollution sources, and I think there's obviously considerably more work to be done in that area. 

The session as today identify the complexity of water movements and pollution sources on the Somerset levels and more, and we work on the opportunity to work with key partners in the future to develop our understanding and to work in partnership to restore the Somerset level Moors in the longer term. 

At the current time, the Council is focusing resources on delivering additional nutrient mitigation schemes utilising the £9.6 million government funding we've been awarded for this purpose.To date, over 600 dwellings have been progress with nutrient mitigation and further large-scale development sites are in progress with their own site solutions. 

We've published a wealth of guidance to support development industry and to facilitate the third-party credit marke. We now have sufficient credits to unlock a further four and a half thousand homes in Somerset and we will continue to work on increasing the supply which will help bring cost down.  

We acknowledge that nutrient neutrality continues to be a challenge for developers, not just in Somerset but across the country, and we will continue to work to find ways to minimise this burden wherever we can. 

Whilst at this stage the executive is unable to support the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee based on the legal advice to date and the limited resources available, we will continue to consider new evidence and legal advice where this is raised, but at the same time, we must also ensure the legal and financial risk to the Council and Somerset taxpayer is minimised.  

I will hand over now to Kate Murdoch, who will give you a more detailed presentation of the issues raised from theScrutiny recommendations. Thank you” 

Kate Murdoch, Service Manager Planning Policy and Implementation,presented the officer report andExecutive briefing slides, that had been considered and agreed by theExecutive on Wednesday 5th June 2024.  

The committee noted the response from the Executive, confirming that the recommendations from the Scrutiny committee will not be taken forward at thepresent time, but felt that the committee should continue toestablish aTask and Finish group. TheChair asked that those members who would like to sit on a Task and Finish group (Scrutiny recommendation 4) should come forward, and a meetingto discuss the remit and scope of this should be scheduled as soon as possible.