Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the relative cost of (1) peat free compost, and (2) compost incorporating peat; and what steps they are taking to reduce the cost of peat free materials to gardeners.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
In the recently published England Peat Action Plan we have committed to undertake a full consultation in 2021 on banning the sale of peat and peat containing products in the amateur sector by the end of this Parliament. As part of that consultation, we will be considering opportunities to reduce both the costs and availability of alternatives to peat in growing media.
As outlined in the Action Plan, the Government is committed to working with the industry to understand the implications of our proposals, identify blockages and to working with the private sector to develop and enact solutions, thus making the transition to peat alternatives as seamless as possible.
The England Peat Action Plan is attached.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park on 29 January (HL608), whether the Environment Agency has prosecuted Thames Water in relation to incidents of polluting the River Thames or its tributaries since the beginning of 2020.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
There have been no prosecutions of Thames Water for pollution to the Thames or its tributaries in 2020.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park on 29 January (HL608), what powers exist to curtail housing developments in the Thames Valley until sufficient capacity for treating sewage has been developed by Thames Water.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on water and sewerage companies to provide, maintain and extend a system of public sewers to ensure that the area is and continues to be effectually drained. Water and sewerage companies and the Environment Agency are statutory consultees on local authority development plans, which provide the primary means of determining where future development should be located, including in respect of wastewater infrastructure. Local councils in their role as local planning authorities adjudicate on individual planning applications which, under planning law, must be decided in accordance with the development plan, subject to other material planning considerations. Water and sewerage companies can comment on individual applications and their representations should be taken into account by the planning authority where they raise material planning considerations.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on how many occasions the Environment Agency has prosecuted Thames Water for illegal discharges of untreated sewage into the River Thames or its tributaries in the last five years for which figures are available; and in what instances a penalty was imposed as a result of any such prosecution.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The table below shows the prosecutions of Thames Water Utilities Limited by the Environment Agency during the five calendar year period (from 2015 to 2019) for illegal discharges of sewage to the River Thames and its direct and indirect tributaries.
Each row of the chart represents one prosecution. The watercourse related to the prosecution is shown in the centre column, and the type of penalty which resulted from the prosecution is shown in the right-hand column.
Table title: Prosecution of Thames Water Utilities Limited by the Environment Agency, 2015 to 2019, for sewage discharges to direct and indirect tributaries to the River Thames | ||
Date of Prosecution | Name of Water Course | Outcome |
16/02/2015 | River Blackwater | Fined |
29/08/2014 [03/06/2015] | River Enborne, Chase Brook and nearby watercourses | Fined |
04/01/2016 | Grand Union Canal | Fined |
07/03/2016 | Horsenden Stream | Fined |
22/03/2017 | Fawley Court Stream | Fined |
22/03/2017 | River Thames | Fined |
22/03/2017 | River Thames | Fined |
22/03/2017 | Moor Ditch | Fined |
22/03/2017 | River Thames | Fined |
22/03/2017 | Barkham Brook | Fined |
10/07/2019 | Maidenhead Ditch and River Cut | Fined |
21/12/2018 [26/07/2019] | Idbury Brook | Fined |
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many times OFWAT has fined Thames Water for illegal discharges of untreated sewage into rivers; and what penalties were imposed on each occasion.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
Ofwat has not fined Thames Water for illegal discharges of untreated sewage into rivers. Regulation of discharges of untreated sewage to the water environment is the responsibility of the Environment Agency (EA) and not Ofwat.
In March 2017, Thames Water was ordered to pay fines of almost £20 million following a series of significant pollution incidents on the River Thames and its tributaries in 2012 to 2014. The fine, for six separate cases, was a record as the highest ever set by the courts in a prosecution brought by the EA. More recently, in July 2019, Thames Water was ordered to pay costs and fines of about £700,000 for pollution from Maidenhead Sewage Treatment Works.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the damage caused to footpaths and bridleways in the Lake District National Park; and what measures are available to park authorities to remedy such damage.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are taking any action to prevent damage to footpaths and bridleways by off road vehicles and trail bikes; and if so, what this action entails.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Some public rights of way allow for the legal use of motor vehicles. Footpaths and bridleways however do not. Any person riding an off-road motorised vehicle such as a trail bike on a public footpath or bridleway is committing a criminal offence and such issues are for the police to deal with.
Byways open to all traffic do carry vehicular rights and are managed by local highway authorities. Local authorities have the power to make traffic regulation orders to close routes to motorised vehicles if any problems occur, provided they fully consider and respond to any representations they receive about a proposed order.
In response to last year’s report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Defra is currently working with Natural England and stakeholders to assess current use of traffic regulation orders and refresh the guidance for local authorities.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 15 March (HL5998), (1) when did Network Rail seek the Environment Agency's assurance in providing assistance to relieve the flood problems at Cowley Bridge Junction, (2) when the Environment Agency responded to that request, and in what form, (3) when is Network Rail expected to respond to this request, (4) how long the Environment Agency forecasts it will take to assess the consequences of the structure, and (5) in the meantime, what assessment has been made of the flood risk to the railway and surrounding area.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Environment Agency (EA) agreed in 2014, following flooding of the railway line in 2012 and 2013/14, to assist Network Rail in finding a technically appropriate solution to the problem, whilst ensuring that it does not conflict with the £30 million investment in new flood defences in Exeter.
The EA has had regular meetings with Network Rail to provide advice on its culvert installation and weir removal works at Cowley Bridge. The EA has also been working with Network Rail since November 2017 to advise on the flood risk modelling for its weir removal proposals. This includes the EA providing flood history information, geomorphology commentary and examples of issues experienced in other local weir removal projects.
The EA has also established a team to assist Network Rail with the technical and permitting requirements of both phases of its works at Cowley Bridge, and has accelerated the issuing of permits for the culvert works.
Network Rail’s modelling is expected to be completed in spring 2018 and on completion the EA will provide feedback on the outputs. This is to ensure that Network Rail’s proposals do not increase flood risk to residential properties or adversely impact on the level of protection provided by new flood defences in Exeter. The EA will prioritise this work to ensure a timely response to Network Rail.
Although flood risk models have been available for discrete areas around Exeter and the Cowley Bridge location since 2005, no single model takes account of the whole system or all watercourses. The EA is working with Network Rail to ensure its latest modelling is comprehensive. In the interim there is a flood warning system for Cowley Bridge. This has been in place since 2012, with improvements to the forecasting model introduced in November 2017.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
Her Majesty's Government what are the comparative statistics for air quality in (1) Nottingham, Southampton and Derby, which are proposed Clean Air Zones, and (2) the City of Bath.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The report Air pollution in the UK 2015, which was published in September 2016, reported all four locations to be compliant in all air pollutants levels with the exception of the mean annual concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that were all reported to be above the 40 μg/m3 limit value.
The 2015 national air quality plan for NO2 showed the highest projected mean annual concentrations of NO2 to be 42 μg/m3, 41 μg/m3, 43 μg/m3 and 35 μg/m3 in 2020, for the respective air quality zones for Nottingham, Southampton, Derby and Bath. The projections modelling is being updated to take into account the latest evidence and the final revised air quality plan will be published by 31 July, following consideration of consultation responses.
Asked by: Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in resolving problems of damage to rights of way caused by off-road vehicles and trail motorcycles.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The responsibility for the management of off-road vehicles and motorcycles on public rights of way lies with local highway authorities and National Park Authorities, who have considerable powers to deal with problems of damage through the use of traffic regulation orders and also through the use of voluntary constraint agreements.
No recent assessment of the state of the off-road network has been made, but previous research has shown that problems are localised.
In order to share knowledge and build on existing best practice Defra and Natural England have set up a one-off forum for motor vehicle stakeholders in November to share their experiences and discuss ways of working together in the future.