Presentation by a representative of Yorkshire Water about the management of Yorkshire Water’s combined sewer overflows and Nidd assets.
Minutes:
Considered:
A presentation by Sarah Robinson Corporate Affairs Advisor at Yorkshire
water who delivered a presentation on the River Nidd Investment and YWs assets
along the river Nidd and plans to improve the river health with a focus on the environment
and public use of the water for activities such as swimming. The presentation was followed by questions
from the Members:
Cllr Haslam requested that the notes from the
discussion be forwarded to Yorkshire Water so that
Members points could be followed up, this was agreed. The following points were raised:
· The actions taken by YW to
prevent water getting into the system
· The indicators of volume of
water such as KPI’s
· Where there is/has been an
overflow the potential for warning signs to be erected
· liaison with developers
about preventive measures such as water butts on new housing
· Bilton Beck measures
SR confirmed that Yorkshire Water were undertaking
a lot of work and looking at prevention i.e. preventing or slowing water from
reaching the river during a downpour, one of the most effective ways was to
install underground tanks. They were a statutory consultee on planning
applications but was unable to compel development companies to take action such
as putting water butts on every new home, it was
currently investigating permeable paving in the Hull and Doncaster areas.
· Cllr Walker asked how
biodiversity and environmental impact were included within cost/benefit
analysis
· Cllr Gostlow – Suggested
that the Committee receive regular updates on sewerage discharges and full
update on improvements from YW. The following points were also raised:
· What is the surge capacity
of the network given the amount of development around the district
· Is there a tipping point
for the river Nidd?
· What technology improvements
and mitigations have been explored?
· Is there an environmental
fund within YW to utilise?
· What are the flooding and
tourist implications?
· How long after an overflow
is river water safe?
· The Committee to attend a
site visit to Bilton Treatment Works
SR confirmed that YW were taking steps to improve
water quality such as using UV to lessen or eradicate chemicals. Many issues
were outside of YWs remit such as plastic in the water – different issues were
the responsibility of different organisations – if there was flooding from a
burst bank this was the Environment Agencies responsibility but if it was a
full road gully then it became the responsibility of the local Council. It was recognised that capacity was a joint responsibility
between all agencies and SR would take back the comments made at the meeting.
· The £180M that YW had been
granted for improvements was still subject to approval/allocation and was part of an intensive cost-benefit analysis
· Sarah confirmed that YW
were working in partnership with Nidderdale AONB
through Beyond Nature and through this Farmers in Nidderdale
were being offered incentives to take up greener farming methods
· The ‘near live’ monitoring
system, planned for rollout in April 2024, meant people would be able to check
whether there had been a discharge within an hour of the event – the alerts
would remain on the website for 48 hours enabling members of the public enough
time to check before going to the river
· YW considered certain areas
‘high priority’ this was a government designation and related to areas where
there was likely to be a high degree of environmental impact
· YW had not paid dividends
to its shareholders for the last seven years and would not be paying any during
the rollout of AMP4 – it was anticipated this would continue for a few years
after that as well
· SR agreed to take back the
points and questions raised at the meeting
The Chair thanked SR for the presentation and
attendance at the meeting
Resolved –
That
the report on the Yorkshire Water CSO Management Plan in the Harrogate and
Knaresborough constituency area be noted.
Supporting documents: