WATER CYCLE STUDY
From Rebecca Roseff
Questions on Water Supply, Drainage and Sewage
See Water Cycle study Prepared, checked and approved by Brian Faulkner 22 Sept 2009 LDF 2nd Ed
At: http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/WCS_Redacted_Text_Only.pdf
In the Executive Summary and text (para.s 2.4.2.and passim) it states there are 5 Environment Agency defined Water Resource management Units (WRMUs) in Herefordshire, 4 in the Wye and 1 in the Teme (WRMUs include groundwater and surface water). All of them are at No Water Available status. It means if all the licenses are taken up fully the river flow would be compromised. It means no new abstraction licenses will be granted, and (with climate change) a range of measures will have to be adopted.
Yet Welsh Water states (in the Executive Summary and elsewhere) that generally, taking into account the RSS housing forecasts, and climate change impacts on demand (but not supply), DC Welsh Water shows that for a Dry Year Annual Average scenario all of its Water Resource Zones (WRZs) have a supply-demand surplus across the planning period (page xiv) and they have sufficient water to meet the housing expansion.
How can DCWW say they have sufficient water for the additional houses when the Environment Agency say 4 out of 5 extraction areas are currently ‘At Capacity’?
Paragraphs 4.27 and passim
The report says “In view of Herefordshire as a key Growth Area, raw water availability and the ongoing license position may become a key factor for each sector of potable water, industrial usage, and agriculture.
As circa 60% of water used in Herefordshire is for agriculture, and it is currently ‘At Capacity’ abstraction licences for agriculture and industry will have to be restricted to meet the new housing needs. What effect on the local economy will restricting abstraction licences for agriculture have? Will agriculture and industry dependent on water be restricted and have to move elsewhere? how many jobs will be lost? How much income to Herefordshire will be lost?
The report states that if the proposed growth for Herefordshire city materialise, then its initial indications are that the trunk water mains serving the city from both north and south would need to be upsized to ensure security of supplies.
What would be the cost of upgrading the water mains? How will this impact on the development money available to provide the other infrastructure needed with the expansion?
Table 4.8: Supply-demand surpluses shown by DCWW depend very substantially on significant reductions in Unmeasured households, typically 2.5%/year take up of meters in households is required.
Is this realistic given that DCWW and Welsh Assembly Government policy is not to encourage water metering? How will it be achieved? If it is not achieved what is the forecast water availability, with the projected new houses in place.
If developers put in meters, what will be the cost of providing meters to developers? How will developers funding meters effect the cost of housing, affordable and otherwise and the amount of S106 money and other development money available to provide infrastructure, such as the bypass?
The report states (Executive summary and text) that there is a large unexplained discrepancy between the household and population figures provided by DC Welsh Water and those estimated by Herefordshire Council. The DCWW estimates pop is 175,000 in the 6 water resource zones. HC says it is 175,500 in Herefordshire alone. It appears that DCWW may be under estimating population or Herefordshire Council over estimating it.
What effect would DCWW underestimate have on their statement that there is sufficient water to supply the projected extra housing?
How will the two estimates be reconciled?
Sewage
pxvi Executive Summary, states there are likely to be constraints on sewage systems, 34 of the 51 treatment centres in Herefordshire managed by DCWW for example are at capacity and the two largest STWs, Rotherwas and Eign STWs will have a shortfall on capacity of 1,539 houses by 2026. Neither DCWW nor STW would undertake the work to find out the nature and extent of the constraints unless they were paid to do so and had more detail from H.C. on housing numbers and locations. Investment is made by application to OFWAT on the basis of confirmed housing numbers, on a 5 yearly cycle. If houses are built before the 5 yearly investment assessment and possible subsequent improvements, the developers will have to foot the bill.
How much upgrading is required to STW, how much will it cost for developers to upgrade the sewage works to allow the extra housing to take place. How will this investment by developers impact on other their other infrastructure contributions, such as the planned bypass
The Water Cycle Study recommends that HC produce a time-line matrix for every STW showing when operational limits will be reached and the cost of upgrading.
Has this study been done, can we see the results?
River Quality
The study found that the river Lugg and Arrow and Leadon are ‘poor ecological status’, they are polluted with phosphates, 50:50 between sewage and farming and will require mitigation.
What does the mitigation involve, how will it be done, whose responsibility is it, how much will it cost? How will the money spent on the mitigation impact on other infrastructure requirements, such as the planned bypass?
The Humber SE of Leominster and Frome upstream of Bromyard are the worst rivers for ecological status and will require specific measures if new housing is required in these sub-catchments.
What does the mitigation involve, how will it be done, whose responsibility is it, how much will it cost? How will this impact on other infrastructure requirements, such as the planned bypass? How many houses are planned for these sub-catchments and how will they be accommodated in the improvements already required to the current river status?
Section 5 says both the upper and lower Leadon sub-catchments have water bodies in poor ecological status. The lower Leadon is identified as a nutrient sensitive water body under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. A large number of new houses are planned for Ledbury. The LDF should take account of the existing ecological status of these water bodies, together with the identified actions from the Severn District River Basin Management Plan.
There is significant housing pressure in the River Leadon catchment. The emerging spatial strategy should take account of the existing ecological status of these water bodies, together with the identified actions from the Severn District River Basin Management Plan.
What work will be done to improve the river Leadon water quality? How will the houses be accommodated in Ledbury and the river Leadon water quality also improved? What cost implications are there?
The report states that Herefordshire Council needs to prove the chosen locations and level of growth can happen without exceeding the Sewage Treatment Works discharge consents necessary to meet environmental protection and improvement standards for receiving water bodies. There are absolute nutrient loads for individual rivers beyond which deterioration is inevitable and water quality and related ecological improvements impossible. … In the absence of detailed evidence supporting the phasing, costs and delivery of new infrastructure requirements it is likely to lead to unsustainable development resulting from negative planning/reactive planning, which may in turn effect the water environment
Where is the study to show that Herefordshire Council has done this work?
Water Treatment
4.3.6 At Broomy Hill, the max treatment capacity is 58Ml/day or 11.5% over current licence max.
Is 11.5% sufficient for the number of houses planned? Will the works need to be expanded. If so and developers pay for the work, how will this impact on other infrastructure requirements, such as the planned bypass?
Vowchurch Bore Hole
The Water Cycle Study states that Vowchurch is dependent on boreholes with abstraction of 4.0 Ml/d. With the Critical Period scenario (high demand, low flow) there is a marginal supply surplus until 2010. After 2010 demand exceeds supply by 0.07 Ml/day, equivalent to 11.5l/p/d. The final planning option is to upsize the Trunk Main from Hereford at a cost of £0.43m.
£0.43m seems a low cost to upgrade the Trunk Main from Hereford to Vowchurch. Is this the real figure? If water is taken from Hereford to Vowchurch how will that affect Hereford’s own supply and future supply with additional houses?
Drainage and Surface Water
The Water Cycle study found states that all development sites should have a sustainable drainage policy, implemented with the collaboration of Environ Agency and sewerage undertaker (DCWW). Surface Water Management Plans are now urgently required for
- Hereford north west
- Hereford south east
- Leominster
Have these studies been completed, can they be seen, have they included the new housing?
TRAFFIC EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE BASE FOR THE PREFERRED OPTION
from Paige Mitchell
Paragraph 4.13 states that ‘Policy H2 is proposing a package of sustainable transport measures based on an amended Option 2 as contained within the Place Shaping Paper and a provision of a relief road, the western route corridor of which has been informed by the ‘Hereford Relief Road – Study of Options’ Report (Aug 2010).’
a) What is the relationship between the ‘amended Option 2′ and the Sustainable Option 2 tested in TPi ‘Hereford Relief Road Interim Forecasting Report Sustainable Option Packages FINAL August 2010′? Is this ‘Amended Option 2′ the one tested and reported on by TPi in August 2010?
b) If not, where is the evidence on the modelling of this ‘Amended Option 2′? Why was it not available for the consultation?
c) The Amey Report on the Study of Options available to the public is dated September 2010 and is not cited in this consultation. Where is the August 2010 report and when will it be made available to the public?
