Category Archives: Projects

The Parent for the categories used by sub-groups. Don’t delete! Otherwise not used at present. On the old site this category included all articles for current projects.

Plan showing proposed additional storage tank

Here below you can see the NAEG proposal for the inclusion of an additional element in the Cwm sewerage works

improvement programme, by way of the inclusion of an additional storm water storage tank (see in green below),

to be added next to the existing far smaller underground storm storage tank, added as an overlay

(together with thumbnail cross-sectional view) on top of the Arup plans for the improvement works

already planned.

Proposed Additional Tank Overlay


For the written details as to why we consider this is a vital and necessary further addition needed in order to

complete the optimal utility of the scheme please refer to the document titled Last minute Letter to DC/WW.

 

Last Minute Letter to DC/WW

Prospective New ‘Replacement’ Sea Outfall

The latest schedule can be found in the February 2011 Newsletter.

Please refer to the new materials in the Water Quality Project section in order to appreciate the programme of works proposed by Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water’s contractors & sub-contracts regarding the imminent installation of a replacement so-called ‘long’ sea-outfall from the Sewage Pumping Station located behind the Old Life-boat House at the Y Cwm out into the Bay to a discharge point off Pen Catman.

Also refer to the document title last minute letter to DC/WW for our proposal to complement these works with an additional element, namely an additional storm storage tank capacity located next to the Cwm SPS.

Report: Approval Procedures for Hydro Generating Installation

Here is a Report by Vicky Moller, Vice-Chair of the Group, and one of our leading Members on Renewable Energy (Sustainable Power) issues. She has been invited to attend a discussion in the near future with the U.K. Environment Agency in London, on the topic of the Regulation and Assessment of how much so-called micro scale hydro-power generating installation can contribute in future to our sustainable ‘energy’ needs. Her she discusses the topic of the history and pro and cons of EA regulation of this technology to date.

Hydro for Wales – will the environment agency stop it?

I am convinced not. However there have been hold-ups and frustration with the regulations imposed by the agency. Hold-ups have been up to 3 years, 2 to provide all the information to the agency, eg counting fish over the year, and wait for their response, and one to order the generating equipment.

This is galling when there is the risk of feed in tariffs disappearing on the chariot of fire on which they descended from govt.

The exciting bit, for me, is that it is easy to influence events, I am finding. Our environment group responded to the EA consultation on making it simpler to get hydro, or I responded on their behalf and am invited to London Westminster this month to hear and discuss their proposals. The group wanted this reported, as they are paying my fare. We welcome views and suggestions from anyone in Wales, especially transition organisations.

Back to the wonderful complexities of the issue.

Make no mistake, hydro is the Cinderella of renewables, least regarded, least invested in but the real princess of the bunch. The reasons are all obvious: Water is most energy dense, water flows steadily, is easy to access for repairs and installation. Hydro generators last 100 years, or used to! The life of PV and wind kit is calculated at 20 years.

We need two kinds of power, bread and butter constant for eg lights, water-pumps and computers (bread and butter to me anyway) and special purpose manufacturing, power tools which can be used intermittently when there is the power. Hydro brings home the bread and butter, is the full time worker, getting time off during droughts when her fancy sister pv generally stands in.

But hydro has and can cause problems more serious than lack of power! In the middle ages the rivers and streams of Britain teemed with fish, then watermills were installed everywhere without regard for the fish that fed the peasants. Weirs blocked their spawning grounds, streams suddenly dried up when sluices opened, fish were killed in water wheels, their numbers dropped and sea fishing took off.

In addition to risks for fish there are risks of floods upstream when water is impounded, and depriving people downstream of flows, or their chance of hydro. So hydro cannot be installed willy nilly, regulation is reasonable. Which is more important fish-rich rivers or lit up houses? There is only one right answer, even if people haven’t got it.

The EA didn’t mean to stop hydro by taking 2 years to give an answer, they were just unprepared for the surge of applications. Hence the consultation on getting it simpler. The Welsh Environment Agency has decided to do it differently to England and make it simpler still. However we don’t know how soon their simple plan will leave the table and be on the streets, or the waterways.

One reason people don’t rate hydro is that very few people live at the bottom of waterfalls. Low flat rich land and cities go together. Rocky mountains, hydro potential and sparse habitation go together. What few have noticed is that people have legs, mountains, tides, winds don’t. I was in North Wales slate country and so jealous, they had it all, land for food, slate and forests to build, towering waterfalls for oodles of power. The residents of all backgrounds seemed blind to their enormous luck, there wasn’t a transition movement in sight!

Feed in Tariffs and their solidity. They arrived dripping gold, and some leapt to the opportunity, Now they may waver or shrivel in the October spending review, they could disappear or shrink at any time, and are predicted to in less than 3 years when their review is scheduled. Hydro feed in tariffs have been swathed in uncertainty from the start. Which equipment is certified? None certainly, which installers certified? one or two for Wales, a few more for Scotland. Arguments are ongoing. The trade don’t want certification required for equipment, as old kit works and lasts better than new. Again I was arguing this point with the woman in charge of writing the regulations at Ecobuild 2009. She accepted I had valid points and said it was useful to her deliberations. It would be gratifyng that one can have an influence on policy by arguing at a stand in a show, but it really demonstrates how arbitrary and incompetent the process is.

www.ecocymru.org
www.pembrokeshire.econews.org.uk

Vicky Moller
01239 820971

Hapus i gyfathrebu’n Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.
Happy to communicate in Welsh or English

A Brief History of Newport Sewerage

Newport Sewerage Network on Google Earth Overlay

The current sewerage system in Newport dates from principally the end of the 19th and the first two decades of the 20th Centuries. At that time the local authority with primary responsibility for its installation and maintenance was the Cemaes Rural District Council, whose acronym (CRDC) can still be seen on many SAPs (manholes) and other sewerage infrastructure places.

The system installed then, as now, is predominantly a “combined system”; by which is meant that the same infrastructure is used for both the drainage of surface water run-off from buildings and street gutters, as is also used for the disposal of waste water and sewage from within buildings.

The result is that during, and in the immediate aftermath of, periods of severe rainfall events (i.e. storms) the system can become overloaded with a throughput or flow-rate demand greater than it can handle. For instance current computer modelling, done by DC/WW, for the town main is based on a calculated ‘dry weather flow-rate’ (DWF) of 5.4 l/s  [1]; whereas, the modelled ‘Storm flow rate’ (SFR) is set at 14 l/s [2]. In point of fact, storm condition readings have shown discharge rates in the system exceeding 24l/s, or more than x4 the dry flow rate.

In the early 1970s the Statutory Water Undertaker (“SWU”) completed a ‘so-called’ Long Sea Outfall (“LSO”) which stretched from a simple first stage maceration plant, located immediately to the west side of the Old Lifeboat Station at Y Cwm, out into the Bay to a point 380m off the coast at Pen Catman (“Cat Rock”). The process of discharging untreated sewage to immediate vicinity of coastal waters was said to be only a ‘temporary’ solution, as in due course the then anticipated European Legislation on bathing waters quality (“BWQ”) would demand treatment of all sewage prior to coastal waters discharge. At this time there was no installation of any plant to ‘treat’ the sewage biologically, only a maceration and screening installation down at the Cwm.

In 1997 a detailed Study and Report [3] was done on the sources and levels of sewage contamination parameters, known as Faecal Indicator Organisms (“FIO”), in the whole of the Nyfer (“Nevern River”) Catchment, including also the waters of the Newport Estuary.

The findings indicated that whilst so-called farm run-off into the headwaters of Nyfer Catchment was a major source of faecal indicator organisms, during and after severe weather episodes (i.e. rain storms), generally a full 75% of the FIO budget load in the catchment came from sewer based discharges. This was at a time (summer 1997) when the record of bathing waters samples taken off Treath Mawr (the Big Beach), whilst passing the imperative or mandatory standards for FIO parameters, was never the less regularly failing the Guideline Standard of the 1976 EU BWQ Directive.

As a result of the findings in this Report, and at long last, the then Chairman of the Board of Welsh Water himself came to a meeting in the Memorial Hall (Oct 1998)and promised than within the next 5-year rolling programme of their Capitol Plant Improvement they would provide a full 3-stage Waste Water Treatment Works (“WwTW”) for Newport, including third stage UV (Ultra violet) treatment for destruction of viruses left untouched by the bacteriophage treatment.

In the result, an engineering report was commission in 2001 for the installation but for only a 2-stage settlement and anti-bacterial sedimentation treatment works. However, rather than siting this down in the Cwm valley behind the Old Lifeboat House, which is the natural gravity base of the sewerage network, the Report placed the new WwTW up on ‘Rhigian Farm’ more than 800m (� mile) to the east and up on top of the coastal cliffs more than 55m higher than the town main as it reaches Y Cwm behind the Old Lifeboat Station. In order to supply this new Newport WwTW, DC/WW were then forced to install, at great water ratepayers expense, a continuous (24/7) duplex pumping station down at the Cwm instead, to pump the sewage up the significant height and over this considerable distance. Involving a full kilometre of�sewers to supply and drain the WwTw.�This was�largely all�done in order to cater to the concerns of, and indeed the access disputes between, the local landowners concerned. There was no community involvement in the consultations on this process, yet alone informed debate about its consequential effects whatsoever.

One such entirely predictable effect has of course been that during the heavy rainfall events (rain storms), precisely when the contamination of FIO parameters in the River system is at its greatest due to excessive farm run-off ; that is now also precisely when the pumping capacity down at the Cwm Sewage Pumping Station (“SPS”) is unable to meet the demand, and a combined storm overflow (“CSO”) comes into operation which simply by-passes the SPS, and therefore also the WwTW, entirely and instead simply discharges the ‘combined’ sewage run-off solution directly into the LSO. In effect, a simple re-iteration of the ‘double whammy’ effect previously identified in the Prof Kay study.

A couple of years later over the period 2002/3 DC/WW was, as reported to us, able to access grant aid funding to assist with a significant ‘upgrade’ to the Newport Sewer Main, by way of the laying of a larger diameter relief sewer, including across the Parrog, which would allow for compliance with the provisions of EU Waste Water Directive, given interal UK effect by Regs. in 1994. Including specifically as to the closure of the Combined Storm Overflows (“CSO”) in the system, which it was considered would not then be needed once a relief sewer was installed. That was certainly the ‘promise’ made by DC/WW at the time as a benefit to be gained to the community from the works.

However, in the event, when the contractors came to install this relief sewer across the Parrog, they ‘discovered’ that a house built in the 1970s had been built directly over the top of the ‘old’ town main, against policy on such matters, and that consequently to comply with sewerage rules the ‘old’ Parrog Main would have to be capped and closed under this property, and consequently that the ‘relief’ sewer would have to become a ‘replacement sewer’ instead, across this part of the ‘mid-Parrog’ front.

NAEG is still left suspicious and concerned as to the extent to which this clearly unsatisfactory arrangement, creating in effect a two into one, choke point just before
‘Ty Newydd’, has contributed to a reduction in the flow-rate capacity of the new “relieved” system. What we know is that in the event the CSOs, both at the Parrog and next to the footbridge over the ‘school stream’ (known to DC/WW as ‘The Elms’ site), far from being closed, have been kept and are now due to be upgraded. The Parrog CSO has just this year been granted a brand new Discharge Consent by the EA(W) (for details see here).

Also it was found at the time the relief sewer was being completed in 2003 as far as the Cwm that, during and immediately after rain storms, sewage was ‘backing-up’ in the Lower Parrog area (‘Bron Llys’ and westward). In order to prevent the occurrence of sewage back-up into the domestic properties in the area (Bron-Llys to Bettws) non-return valves or rather flaps were installed. The need for these was self evident and obviously much welcomed by the residents concerned.

However, due to the ingress of sand sedimentation, seemingly blocking the LSO nearly entirely, at around the same time, a CSO was also “installed” under the slipway in front of the Old Lifeboat Station. This was arranged to operate from the manhole chamber, to the right of the Lifeboat House, where there had been some backup emerging, to discharge instead directly into the culvert carrying the Cwm stream waters under the coastal path to the left of the Lifeboat Station. This culvert itself then discharges directly on the open beach on the Cwm to the left of the slipway, which has been a traditional place for picnicking and for bathers using Cwm waters to change etc.

It was claimed by DC/WW again that this was only a temporary measure which might never or only rarely be needed. They claimed that it didn’t need a statutory discharge consent from the EA(W) because it was only an emergency measure, undertaken to protect human life and health in an unforeseeable emergency, as to which see an exceptional defence under the relevant legislation [4]. The NAEG position is that this is a palpably absurd position to take to excuse the creation of a permanent installation arrangement which has now been in “operation” for years.

Originally the EA(W) appeared to us to accept this unacceptable position. However, since we have raised the matter with them, their position is now to have just recently refused a formal discharge consent application for this CSO, on the basis that it is an “unauthorised” discharge for which only a temporary need has been established [5], as respects which they agree they’ll take criminal enforcement action, in the event of their having (or being given) evidence of its use. However, no monitoring equipment was ever installed and the EA(W)’s acceptance of the situation is based only on very intermittent inspections.

More recently still in the winter of 2006/2007 it was noticed that the concrete entablature surrounding the LSO, where that passed through the bottom of the tidal median, and therefore where the effect of the low tide surf is greatest, off the Lady’s Bathing Beach (just beyond Y Cwm), had started to break up. Eventually it was determined by the following winter that the LSO had completely broken up. Consequently, in the spring of 2008 DC/WW installed a short (40m) length of re-placement outfall to the end of the broken section, and secured a dispersal discharger to the sea bed just 1m below mean low water depth.

However, once again it was declared at the time that this was accepted as only a ‘temporary’ solution. Fortunately the fulfilment of that commitment is now at last in sight. As the latest news is that DC/WW will be presenting an Exhibition in the Memorial Hall imminently, illustrating the replacement LSO which they have now scheduled for completed by Aug of next year (2011). So hopefully some good news to end on !


[1] Refer to para 6 of current Cwm SPS CSO storm discharge consent
The rationale for deciding on the “dry weather flow rate” is set out at para 6 of the Treated Discharge Variation Consent as being derived from the following calculation, namely the average daily flow to the treatment works during seven consecutive days without rain (excluding a period which includes public holidays) following seven days during which the rainfall did not exceed 0.25 millimeters on an one day.

[2] More accurately 13,7 l/s (storm flow condition) per para 4 of same consent

[3] Faecal Indicator Organism , Sources and Budgets for the Nyfer Catchment, Pembrokeshire June 1997 A Report to Dwr Cymru and the Environment Agency By Dr Mark Wyer, Dr. John Crowther & Prof David Kay

[4] unlawful discharge of sewage into controlled waters was needed “in an emergency in order to avoid danger to life or health“, as to which see s.89(1)(b) of the Water Resources Act 1991.

[5] This on the basis that once the new replacement and larger diameter LSO is completed next year there’ll be no case any longer whatever for this CSO.

Glossary of Terms & Acronyms

Sewer = /su(r), sju-/ n. a conduit, usu. underground, for carrying off drainage water and sewage.

Sewage = /sud, sju-/ n.  waste matter, esp. excremental, conveyed in sewers.

Sewerage =/surd, sju-/ n.   a system of or drainage by sewers, the infrastructure of the same.

 

CSO = Combined Storm Overflow

(activated in this of severe rainfall to discharge combined sewage discharge and surface water run-off)

DC/WW = Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water

(the statutory water services undertaker with exclusively responsibility for the Newport Area)

EA(W) = Environment Agency (Wales)

(with primary statutory responsibility for all monitoring and supervision of water services and environment in the Newport Area.)

ID = Internal Diameter

LSO = Long Sea Outfall

SAP = Sewer Access Point (manhole)

SPS = Sewage Pumping Station

WwTW = Waste Water Treatment Works (Sewage Works)

 

 

Bathing Water Testing

The whole subject of when Bathing Waters are tested, what for and what are the significance of the results is a very complex and legally hide-bound topic. We do not propose to cover more than the basics here.

What is the European Bathing Water Quality Directive ?

Back as long ago as the early 1970s the European Union (then the EEC) recognised the importance to both public safety and environmental protection of agreeing a common European standard for the quality of bathing waters, heavily used during summer months by bathers. In the result, after many years of wrangling and debate in the political forums, of the then EEC, in 1975 was created, the first European Bathing Waters Quality Directive (76/160/EEC) Now some 35 years old, but yet still the current legal basis upon which all EU bathing Waters Quality are tested and compared.

This directive has the force of law in the UK, and consequently in order to give it full internal effect the UK Government has passed a Statutory Instrument applying the standards and provisions of the Directive here in the UK. This law was issued back in 1991, The Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991, it having taken at least 15 years after the passing of the Directive, for our Government to get around to giving it such full effect here in Britain.

There has been much involved debate, both acedemic, scientific and political, regarding the effectiveness of the original standards and parameters (pollutants tested for) as set out in the 1976 Directive. Eventually, all of this led in 2006 to agreement on a completely new and replacement directive, called surprisingly enough The EU Bathing Waters Directive (2006/7/EC )

This new and replacement Directive has introduced several new positive innovations :

The revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC):

  • has a closer focus on the protection of public health
  • makes changes to the bathing water classifications system, bringing in more stringent standards
  • continues to apply only to bathing waters and does not include other recreational waters (for example surfing or sailing)
  • has a requirement to produce bathing water profiles , and introduces new requirements for public consultation and recognition in the formulation of these profiles
  • has a requirement to improve signs at bathing waters and other information to allow the public to make informed choices about bathing
  • has a requirement to produce emergency plans required for exceptional circumstances
  • includes the possibility of discounting poor samples at some bathing waters due to abnormal weather
  • timetable is in line with the Water Framework Directive, as bathing waters are protected areas under the Water Framework Directive

Once again this new directive has necessitated a UK law being made in order to give it full internal effect, The Bathing Waters Regulations (2008/ 1097) , but alas again these will not become full effective until March 2015 when the appropriate authorities will thereafter be under the legal duty to take measures to ensure compliance. At least this time round the delay prior to legislative effect is only 9 years ! Consequently, until then we will still have to concern ourselves with the old 1976 Directive.

General Environmental Policies

The Group is fully committed to the promotion of, and the ethos underpining the inspiration for, the transition towns movement, both here in the UK and internationally. In particular, we are gravely concerned to intiate and foster the kind of life-style and community changes, with respect to such issues as local food growing, local waste re-use and re-cycling and local food wastes composting, which we perceive as forming an essential need – if we are to sucessfully meet the future demands upon our society, due to the combined effects and synergies of global climate change, post peak oil economics and macro-economic system reform.

In this regard we are gravely concerned about the lack of policy provision appearing in the Deposit Draft version of the LDP, as that bears on the opportunity to promote land uses for environmentally friendly uses which will be needed in future in order to contribute to the sustainability of our society and our communities. The following three matters are the ones which we picked out as of particular importance, but are by no menas intended to be a comprehensive list. Click on the link to view our formal submission on the topic concerned :

 

No provision specifically locally based community composting

 

Provision for land used for waste recycling is geared to large scale district facilities only.

 

No provision for pro-active promotion of land for allotments

Two further documents are referred to in this submission as follows :

Letter from M. Dunne to Group in 2005

Article in The Independent about need for allotments 2008

 

The following documents were also used as a part of our oral submissions

Newport Allotments submission to NAW Sustainability Committee Inquiry (2010)

Pembs County Council submissions to NAW Sustainability Committee Inquiry (2010)

A Place to Grow (School of Social Sciences King’s College London UNiversity)

Yveline Armstrong’s Experience in Narbeth

 

 

 

 

 

About Recycling in Newport

The Group is actively engaged with all aspects of recycling promotion in and around Newport.

In 2008 the Pembrokeshire County Council “Orange bag” scheme for curb-side collection of recyclable materials was rolled out. The bags are collected at the same time as the regular black-bag collection. NAEG is in no doubt that the political influence of small community based initiatives, such as ours, was instrumental in getting the orange bags into the north of Pembrokeshire, and naturally we wish it all success. NAEG will be carefully monitoring its operation, and assessing any difficulties and opportunities for improvement.

NAEG has now “adopted” the Newport recycling bank for the County Council and we are responsible for its care and supervision, so if you notice problems, please contact Reg Atkinson (see below).  NAEG also recycles waste from Newport’s Festivals. This has drawn our attention to the lack of community composting facilities for food-wastes, which is far from ideal.

The Group is currently addressing issues such as the recycling of lower grade plastics and the ubiquitous ‘Tetra’ packs and we are trying to find ways to help older people without cars to use the recycling bank. In this way we continue to seek solutions for Newport in future.

Meanwhile, we ask you all to always remember that, whilst it’s good to recycle, its better by far to reduce first, and re-use second, repair if needed and recycle only to avoid true waste going to landfill.

Contact Reg Atkinson 01239 820889

General Housing Policies

Under this heading we have identified three areas which concern us most of all. But this is not to say that there are not further areas which we very much agree need radical re-thinking by the NPA. In particular, having attended at the General Housing Policy Issues day at the Enquiry Centre (the E-Commerce Building on Cleddau Reach in Llanion East, Pembroke Dock) we whole-heartedly endorse the concerns of many other groups that the very ambitious percentage of affordable housing requirements set out by the NPA in the plan, always at least 50%, often 70% as in here in Newport, and sometimes even higher, have not be subjected to any form of external or independent ‘viability’ analysis. In particular this would involve the NPA getting together with Pembrokeshire house builders, Social Sector Landlords (e.g. Housing Associations etc.) and landowners of the sites proposed by them for housing, to “crunch the numbers”, in order to establish at the least the financial viability of their proposals. This has not been done.

 

In addition the following three main areas concern the Group with respect to generally the lack of policy based provision, especially as compared to the existing planning situation under the current local development plan the JUDP (Joint Unitary Development Plan 2006).

 

See our written submissions on each topic  here (a brief outline summary appears beneath the link).

 

No policy provision for replacement housing development.

Given our recent experience here in Newport with respect to the notorious replacement dwelling house at Bettws Newydd, on the Parrog, it should be obvious to all why the Group was horrified to discern that the LDP, which will replace the JUDP, proposes to set out no equivalent Policy provision on this topic to replace the existing Policy 56. Without that policy provision in the current local plan, the campaign to oppose the massively over-sized replacement dwelling at Bettws Newydd, representing the overwhelming majority view of the community, would surely have had no chance whatever of succeeding.

 

No policy provision for in-fill and rounding-off within settlement centres

It is simply irrational that whilst the NPA proposes to make some, albeit inadequate, re-iteration of the current JUDP policies on the development of so-called ‘in-fill’ and ’rounding-off’ sites in countryside settlments, where the settlement character or size does not warrant a so called boundary ‘centre-line’; it proposes no such re-iteration in relation to similar such developments proposed within settlements with centre-lines, where as a matter of common sense such proposals are bound to be much more frequent.

 

No or inadequate policy provision on buildings conversions.

The proposed re-iteration of the policy provisions, in the current JUDP, on the vexed subject of the appropriate criterion for permitting building conversions, most especially conversion of non-domestic (typically work related and business use buildings) in the countryside to residential use instead, which are volumious, is proposed for only a bare sentence or two in the new plan. In particular, the very strong requirement in the current plan, for a proposal for conversion to a residential use to come forward only after a business or employment use has been proven to be unavailable, will now be dropped in favour of a preference for residential use favouring affordable housing instead. Whilst, of course, we strongly favour a large proportion of new housing being for affordable needs, a policy of promoting affordable housing conversion in the countryside with no associate viability analysis, or related employment criterion is clearly woefully inadequate.

 

 

 

 

General Policy Issues

Naturally in addition to engaging with the LDP public consultation process as it directly affects us here in Newport, the Group has also sought to make its views known, so far as concerns the General Policy provisions of the NPA as are set out in the current statutory Deposit Draft Version of the LDP.

 

These submissions divide broadly into two areas : those concerned with housing policies, and those concerned with environmental and sustainability issues. Below you will find links to two articles setting out our formal submissions in both of these areas.

 

Housing Policy Provisions

 

Environmental Policy Provisions