The Environment Agency has prosecuted Southern Water for not complying with its sewage discharge consent at a waste water treatment works that it operates in Gillingham, Kent. Southern Water Services Ltd pleaded guilty to the offence at Chatham Magistrates Court last week -  the company was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,305.

The prosecution concerned a consent that Southern Water has to discharge final sewage effluent from the Motney Hill waste water treatment works at Lower Rainham Road into the Medway Estuary. The consent was issued by the Environment Agency in July 1997 and the conditions of the agreement reflect the environmental protection to the mudflats around the area which are designated sites of conservation.

For the consent Southern Water are required to meet a level of no more than 60 milligrams per litre (mg/l) of suspended solids in the permitted discharge.

The Environment Agency took 25 samples from the waste water treatment works between 29 June 2006 and 28 June 2007. During this period there were four failures from the company which is permitted a maximum of three failures for the number of samples taken. On 21 September 2006 the suspended solids level was 360mg/l, on 30 March 2007 it was 559mg/l, on 15 June 2007 the sample was 186mg/l and then 95.6mg/l on 28 June 2007. The samples were taken on a wide cross section of dates over the year and the results were significantly above the consent condition of 60mg/l.

Commenting on the failures, Peter Bilbrough of the Environment Agency said:

“Southern Water were already given a tolerance allowing for some discharges above the agreed consent and had notice from the Environment Agency that they were failing during the year.  Despite that they failed to prevent more than the permitted number of failures especially as some of the failure results are significant and result in those discharges going into a sensitive conservation area.”

In sentencing Magistrates took into account Southern Water’s early guilty plea and found there was no evidence of environmental harm caused as a result of the incident. They also acknowledged that the company had spent £8.4 million in improving their operations at the waste water treatment works, and that this work was underway at the time of the incidents.