Item 12

SCRUTINY BOARD - SCOPING STUDIES

RIVER WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE BOROUGH

Councillors requesting item: Councillor Keeble

Issue In April 2006 Members attended a number of workshops on the corporate vision which was supported by a document entitled the Quality of Life In that was based upon the Audit Commission Quality of Life Indicators. In considering these indicators Members were concerned about the indicators under Environment that showed the % of river length assessed as good biological quality as being 38.81% and the % of river length assessed as good chemical quality being 21.40%.Officer were requested to research the basis of these figures and identify any action that the Council could take to improve these figures.

Background The quality of the water in local rivers is an indication of how good the environment is in a locality. The following two figures in Appendix A give data about two aspects of river water quality – biological and chemical. The percentages are based on the total length of all rivers surveyed within the district or borough boundaries.

Nationally, from a biological viewpoint, 25 authorities have 100 per cent of their total river length classified as good. Of the 340+ authorities included, 44 authorities either have no rivers within their boundaries, were not surveyed or who have no good river water, thus scoring zero.

The best ranking authority in the county is and Deane with 95.6 per cent of its river length classified as good, which ranks 39th nationally. Four other authorities are also in the best quartile, all with over 85 per cent of good river water biologically. , ranked 281st nationally has only 10.2 per cent of river length classified as good. scores zero.

From a chemical viewpoint there are nine authorities, nationally, with 100 per cent of their total river length classified as good and 47 which have no rivers within their boundaries, were not surveyed or who have no good river water.

East (85.8 per cent) has the best record in Hampshire, with two other county authorities in the best quartile, Basingstoke and Deane and Test Valley both in excess of 76 per cent good water chemically. Fareham ranks 267th with 21.4 per cent of good water in its river length. Gosport scores zero.

Appendix B provides a further description of the two indicators that compares Fareham with the national, nearest neighbour, Hampshire districts and PUSH Authorities.

sb-070605-r03-gwh

Further the Local Development Framework, Annual Monitoring Report 2005, included the following comment regarding the water quality within the borough: ‘Rivers, canals and fresh water bodies that either lie or run through Fareham have been assessed for their chemical and biological water quality. These include the River Wallington, Hoeford Lake stream, , Crofton stream, Titchfield Abbey stream, Brownwich stream, and Hook Lake. Water quality ranges from good to fair. In 2003, 21.40% of river length in Fareham was as chemically good, with 38.81% recorded as biologically good’.

Objective & Officers were requested to review what seems to be an inconsistency Description in terms of the water quality in the borough. The inconsistency seems to be in the way the data is interpreted and reported. Attached at Appendix C is the latest State of the Environment Report 2007 on water quality for 2005 from the Environment Agency. As can be seen from the detailed breakdown of the chemical and biological grading of water quality in the Borough, it shows that 86% of assessed river length in Fareham was of ‘good’ chemical quality. (Categories being very good, good and fairly good). This compares to 38.81% previously reported to Members. For biological quality 65% of assessed river length was of ‘good’ quality, compared to 38.81% previously reported to Members. Please clearly state the final objective. Objectives might include scrutiny of process or issue, or shaping of policy option or special project.

Proposed From speaking to the Environment Agency they are of the view that Way Fareham has ‘good’ water quality and ecological quality but it needs to Forward be maintained and improved upon. It is regularly monitored by the Environment Agency and as the enforcing agency they would be seen as the authority to take action in monitoring, enforcing and reporting on the quality of the river water in the Borough. As such, given the Environment Agency’s view that the water quality overall is ‘good’ and that this is regularly monitored, there is no further action required other than reporting the Environment Agency’s State of the Environment Water Quality information to Members. This information will also be available via the Council’s web page giving contact details/telephone numbers and action that members of the public should take to report any incidents or suspected incidents of water pollution and poor river water quality. How is the objective to be achieved? Options might include a report written by officers and considered by Scrutiny or Review Panels; informal working groups; discussion with external bodies; or a combination of several tools. Thought should be given to the process to be followed once the Scrutiny Board completes its work; a request or comment may be made to the Executive or policy options offered to Council.

Key Dates None.

2 APPENDIX A

Figure 4.1 River water quality - biological viewpoint 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Percent rated good rated Percent 0

Hart Havant Fareham Gosport Rushmoor New Forest Test ValleyWinchester East Hampshire Districts National highest Last of quartile 1 Last of quartile 2 Last of quartile 3 National lowest Basingstoke & Deane

Figure 4.2 River water quality - chemical viewpoint 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Percent rated good rated Percent 0

Hart Havant Gosport EastleighFareham Rushmoor New Forest Test ValleyWinchester East HampshireDistricts National highest Last of quartile 1 Last of quartile 2 Last of quartile 3 National lowest Basingstoke & Deane

3 APPENDIX B RIVER QUALITY Biological quality of rivers

28a - % of river length assessed as good biological quality Maximise

120

100

80 Best 2nd 3rd 60 Worst

40 Fareham

20

0 National Quartiles Nearest Neighbours Hampshire Districts PUSH Authorities

Source Environment Agency Chemical quality of rivers

28b - % of river length assessed as good chemical quality Maximise

120

100

80 Best 2nd 3rd 60 Worst

40 Fareham

20

0 National Quartiles Nearest Neighbours Hampshire Districts PUSH Authorities

Source Environment Agency

4 APPENDIX C

5

6

7

8

9

10