Plans to increase Maer Road outfall capacity
ESCAPE is concerned that SWW is planning to add a second pipe to be used to discharge untreated sewage into the water at Exmouth beach. SWW argues this is to reduce sewage flooding to the Maer nature reserve but we believe spilling more sewage into the designated bathing water which is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is an unacceptable solution. This page sets out the background and our arguments.
Current operations
During dry weather, Maer Road pumping station (MRPS) pumps at 120 l/s to Maer Lane Sewage Treatment Works (STW). During rainfall, flow increases to 700 l/s and the storage tanks at the pumping station and treatment works start to fill up. If the rain continues and the tanks fill the excess can be legally discharge through the storm overflow from Maer Road off the rocks in front of the lifeboat station. This is operated by SWW but monitored by the Environment Agency under an agreed permit.
Over the past few years, during very heavy rainfall the combined flow in the sewer pipes and pressure on the outfall pipe from the tide causes pressure in the system which builds to the point at which the manhole covers on the Maer “pop” and allow sewage and everything unfiltered to flood out and onto the Maer reserve. Sewage overflows to land are illegal and present a health risk to the public. Wooden frames have been erected around the manholes with wire mesh to prevent the spread of sewer debris but the water is not contained and enters Littleham Brook and then the sea.
Planned solution
Over the years a number of pipes have been installed across the sand, including the Maer Road outfall pipe, these are often exposed when the sand is eroded and moved along the beach. Most are corroded with large holes so unusable. Last year SWW carried out a dye test on the outfall pipe.
The dye test picture below shows the location of the exisiting outfall A. The dye test revealed a break in the pipe so the outfall is closer to the shoreline than expected. The dye is moving to the east due to the tide which was falling at the time of the test.
The letter B marks the end of another pipe where it enters the water.
SWW also carried out a dye test on the second pipe B and the result of this test is apparent in the next picture.
When we asked about the second test we were told this test was to confirm where the pipe ended and that the pipe would now be permanently blocked.
We now understand from our discussions with SWW that they are planning to use this second pipe in conjunction with the exisiting outfall pipe wich will increase outfall capacity from Maer Road storm overflow. SWW say this will reduce sewage flooding to the Maer nature reserve. We understand this will require a variation of the exisiting permit with the Environment Agency to include a subsidiary outfall pipe.
ESCAPE's view
ESCAPE is opposed to this plan for a number of reasons.
- The outfall from the second pipe is at the shoreline and exposed at low water so poses an increased risk to public health particularly for children and pets who routinely play in the rock pools.
- The wider plans for Exmouth should result in a large reduction to the number of spills into the estuary waters. If this is the case there should be no reason to need to increase outfall capaicty at this sensitive location.
- No impact assessment has been undertaken regarding this decision. Exmouth's economy is reliant on tourists and visitors the beach and waters are our most important asset.
- There is no requirement or opportunity for public engagement / consultation and no independent assessment of the plans to show this is the best / only option.
- Moving environmental damage from one sensitive location to another is not an acceptable solution. We believe that due to lower tidal pressure this second pipe could become the main outfall and some believe the volume of discharge could increase.
Next steps
ESCAPE has started to raise awareness of these plans. The town and district councils are writing to express their opposition to SWW. The Environment Agency have told us they are not happy with the plans but have no statutory ability to prevent or tell SWW how this should be done. They have promised to make us aware as and when an application is made to vary the permit. We have also written to Natural England to ask for their help.
We need your help to prevent further impact on our waters and our town.