Hundreds of permits that allow water companies to dump sewage into Britain’s rivers have not been updated by Government officials for decades with some remaining unchanged since the 1950s, i can reveal.
An i analysis of permits obtained under Environment Information Requests (EIRs) found that some are lacking basic details such as how much sewage a treatment centre can handle before spilling into England’s waterways.
Others do not include limits on pollutants, such as phosphorus, which in high quantities can have a devasting impact on rivers.
i‘s investigation has identified almost 100 permits for active sites that have not been updated since 1989, when water companies in England were first privatised. Two permits date back to the 1950s during the era of rationing and the Suez crisis, while 24 are from the 1960s. Hundreds more have not been updated in at least a decade.
Campaigners have accused the Environment Agency (EA) watchdog, which is responsible for the permits, of “being asleep at the wheel” and have called for them to be urgently updated to include tougher restrictions for water firms.
The EA issues water companies in England with these documents setting out conditions on how they must treat wastewater before it is discharged into the environment.
The permits also outline when water companies can dump untreated sewage into bodies of water, something firms are allowed to do during periods of exceptional rainfall to prevent it from backing up into people’s homes.
They apply to the management of wastewater treatment plants, pumping stations and the pipes in their network through which they are allowed to spill sewage, known as combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
The EA said it regularly reviews the documents and will add new restrictions if deemed necessary, but experts have raised concerns over whether the oldest ones have been updated to reflect factors including population growth and climate change.
The watchdog has a duty to regularly scrutinise the permits issued to companies and to update them if needed.
Dr Ben Surridge, senior lecturer in environmental science at the University of Lancaster, said the documents are an essential tool for regulating water companies and their impact on the environment.
“Firstly it means that the water company has to invest in order to meet that permit and secondly it means you can monitor the effluent for compliance and ultimately there’s a legal route that you can go down with the water company if you’re monitoring suggests they’re not meeting that permit,” he said.
Modern permits can be over 30 pages long and include detailed information on things such as the volume of wastewater an asset, such as a pumping station, should be able to deal with before spilling sewage.
Permits for treatment plants can also include limits on the level of pollutants, such as phosphorus or ammoniacal nitrogen, that can be discharged into the environment. These pollutants can prove deadly to aquatic life if found in high quantities.
i‘s analysis found that some of the oldest are only one page long, have been typed on a typewriter, and contain very little in terms of restrictions.
Some of these old permits were for sites that have been responsible for a high number of sewage spills in recent years, raising questions over why they have not been updated with tougher restrictions.
One example includes Severn Trent’s permit for a CSO located in the village of Cromford, which lies on the edge of the Peak District in Derbyshire.
Severn Trent spilled sewage from that point 70 times – more than once a week on average – during 2022, but the permit for the site has not been updated since 1963 and contains no information around how much sewage is allowed to pass through the site before a spill occurs.
Geoff Tomb, a researcher from the campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, described the permit as “no more than an acknowledgement that spilling takes place at the site but without any permit restrictions”.
There is also concern that restrictions on discharging treated sewage are not stringent enough in Britain’s most protected areas, such as the Lake District.
One example includes the permit for the Troutbeck Wastewater Treatment Plant, that sits within the Lake Windermere catchment area, which hasn’t been updated since 1996.
The permit contains no limits on the level of pollutants, such as ammonia and phosphates, that can be discharged into the water from the treatment plant, meaning the local water company, United Utilities, is not required to test for these nutrients.
Matt Staniek, a conservationist and founder of the Save Windermere campaign, said the permit “is yet another example of the EA being asleep behind the wheel”.
“The absence of limits on the amount of nutrients coming from wastewater treatment works is, in today’s age with readily available technology, unacceptable and outdated,” he said.
Dr Surridge said there are many examples of wastewater treatment work permits that do not include limits on these pollutants.
He said the EA is only required to include these requirements on larger treatment works that are discharging treated effluent into sensitive bodies of water. Permits should be altered if the surrounding population increases or the water quality deteriorates, he said.
Dr Surridge said it was possible that the oldest permits were “still relevant”, but also that conditions had “changed significantly” over time.
He said there were questions over whether the EA was able to “review those permits regularly and ensure that they are appropriate, given the changes in our rivers and lakes, in our catchments, and the climate”.
The EA told i it regularly reviews permits and will update them “when they need to reflect more modern standards or in response to compliance issues”.
It said 12,000 storm overflow permits had been updated with stricter conditions since 2015. That would leave almost 2,500 storm overflow permits that haven’t been updated in the last nine years or for longer.
Mr Tomb said: “There are many old ones that aren’t fit for purpose. One of the reasons is the Environment Agency is drastically under-resourced and underfunded and as a result is not really fit for purpose. One of the things that goes on the back burner is automatic upgrading of older permits.”
The EA recently admitted it has not been able to check sewage permits “as frequently as we should” due to resourcing pressures. The omission came in a consultation on changes to charges for water quality permits and was first reported by ENDS Report.
“Not only are there too many sewer overflows with out of date permits, they are weak and rarely checked for compliance,” said Theo Thomas, Chief Executive of London Waterkeeper, which has voiced concerns over the permits issued to Thames Water.
Mr Thomas would like to see permits updated to include a limit on the number of sewage spills they can be responsible for per year, above which an asset would be branded “unsatisfactory” and improvement work be required.
An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “The fact a permit has not been updated does not necessarily mean it has been left unchecked. We regularly review our permit stock, but they are updated when they need to reflect more modern standards or in response to compliance issues.
“We are strengthening the way we regulate the water industry with 100% of storm overflows in England now monitored and more than 12,000 storm overflow permits updated with stricter conditions since 2015. Our ongoing work to modernise our permit stock will also ensure that all permits are fit for purpose.”
