Conservative council in East Sussex criticises government's storm overflow reduction plan

A Conservative-controlled council has hit out at government plans to reduce sewage being released into rivers and seas, saying “more ambitious deadlines” are needed.

On Wednesday (February 22), Wealden District Council voted in support of a motion ‘condemning’ the government’s Storm Overflow Reduction Plan.

This plan, published last year, sets out the government’s aims to reduce the practice of releasing sewage and excess rainwater into waterways by 75 per cent by 2035 and to completely stop it by 2050.

The motion was jointly-proposed by Conservative council leader Ann Newton and Liberal Democrat councillor Neil Cleaver.

Introducing the motion, Cllr Newton said: “It truly sickens me every time I see it on the news that more sewage is being pumped from overflow pipes on our beaches into our seas or into our rivers. It is almost unbelievable, for the very reason that we are part of a civilised society.”

“I therefore ask you to support the first part of my motion, to write to the secretary of state to call for ambitious deadlines and for a joined-up approach between local authorities, government agencies and sewage companies to stop this most dreadful practice.”

The motion also called for water disposal authorities, such as Southern Water, to live-publish all details of storm overflows, to report annually on their infrastructure improvements and to become statutory consultees on all planning applications.

Cllr Cleaver said: “I’ve sat on planning for the past three-and-a-half years and it has become increasingly apparent to me that public health and wellbeing has to be given greater consideration in the context of planning and development.”

Green Party councillors raised some concerns around part of the motion’s wording, stating the council “cannot refuse planning applications on this issue”. This was disputed by Cllr Ian Tysh (Green, Maresfield), who argued that recent court of appeal cases had shown planning applications could be refused on ‘pollution grounds’.

It was also argued that the wording could be seen as a way of ‘putting a lid’ on discussions of pollution during future planning applications.

Cllr Newton declined to accept an amendment on this as well as another from Independent David White, which asked to council to ask for prison sentences for water companies executives found to have caused severe pollution.