Newsletter October 2002

Tivoli Brooks' Contaminants

Tivoli Brooks often spill a high level of faecal bacteria (seemingly sewage derived) onto the foreshore at Margate main sands (outfall pipe alongside paddling pool). The dilution factor, however, for the spill in the bay itself is immense. And the amount of contaminant is small in contrast to the huge mass of crude sewage transported along flows from the Longnose Spit (Foreness) spills. The question arose at TDC, is the brooks discharge responsible for the recent bacteriological test failures (Bathing Water Directive 1976) at Margate main sands ?

The first failure (5 June 2001) was most probably due to spills (at the LSO and/or CSO) on Longnose Spit, since there were higher levels of bacteria found at the sampling point (Margate beach) than at the brooks outlet itself. (The health hazard is predominantly confined to the locality of this outlet).

The second failure ( 4 September 2001) occurred after the brooks outfall level had been found to be within bacteriological lirnits, but samples taken with an incoming tide failed the test. This evidence points to Longnose Spit sewage discharge as the perpetrator.

The third failure (18 September 2002) was the result of sampling on an incoming tide after heavy rainfall and any conclusions are said to remain equivocal. Historic evidence strongly suggests, however, that the Longnose Spit spill is indeed causative.

Crude sewage discharges (especially following heavy rainfall) remains a major issue in the poor quality of all Thanet's bathing waters and especially of Margate sands.

Clearly, spill from the brooks only can be a minor and not a regular contributor to test failures. The Atkins Go. investigative report to TDC dealt solely with the brooks'  role in the test failures and was inconclusive. Therefore the Precautionary Principle written into the Planning Policy Guidelines must apply at the proposed Foreness Longnose Spit sewage works extension that, as the plan stands, would continue to spill crude hazardous sewage after heavy rainfall.

Southern Water's Application for a Discharge License

Application was submitted to the Environment Agency two-years ago, but it still remains incomplete. Recently, SW presented some propaganda on TV news saying £13 million had recently been spent on improving the sewerage systems in the SE, and £one billion is to be spent on further works by the year-2005. How does this reconcile with the fact that its potential new owners Vivendi (France) are reported in the press as being on the verge of bankruptcy? Why did owners Scottish Power transfer SW to the care of a holding company First Aqua (Bank of Scotland)? What is OFW AT's responsibility? What is the contingency? What is the consequence of the ownership changes/financial/managerial log jam issues for our campaign? Who meanwhile is responsible for taking decisions on sewage works issues for SW?

We suspect that the discharge license application will not be completed until the logjam is cleared. Meanwhile beach visitors and foreshore biodiversity suffer.

Foreness Environmental Action. Secretariat. c/o 34 (Clarence Avenue. Margate CT9 3DR