Latest Newsletter

This page is validated to XHTML 1.0

This page is validated to CSS

This page is validated to CSS

UK Good Beach Guide

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

UK Bathing Water Mandatory Compliance for 2004 (2005 status).

The Environment Agency continues to broadcast the governments false claim that over 98% of the United Kingdoms bathing waters reach the imperative mandatory microbiological standards required by the 1975 76/160/EC Bathing Waters Directive, but scrutiny of the results placed on the Environment Agency's web site shows a very different story. These give the full unedited and uncensored analysis findings from which one can calculate the true EC Bathing Waters Directive mandatory standard 'pass', 'fail' or 'unproven' status for each resort.

The reason is that yet again the results provided for public and press consumption have been based upon compliance to only two of the four required mandatory microbiological parameters, these being total coliforms and faecal coliforms, the indicator bacteria. As in previous years findings of the far more dangerous salmonella and enterovirus pathogens that must be shown as absent for a bathing water to conform to the European Bathing Water Directory Mandatory standard have been ignored. In order to further inflate the number of 'passes' only rarely have they investigated the presence of these pathogens. The deception practised is that by not looking for them it is inferred that as they were not found, then they must be absent. Not unlike a person claiming to have passed an examination when they have not sat it saying, "Well, we didn't fail, so we must have passed!" Despite past protests the United Kingdom authorities have again for 2005 based compliance on a standard of their own making, one seriously short of that demanded by the actual EC Directive.

These flawed claims are widely publicized without inspection or checking by the media and claimed as being the compliance of the United Kingdom resorts to the actual standards required by the EC Directive. The false claims published are never corrected nor denied by DEFRA or the Environmental Agency, but are freely allowed to be used as propaganda by the government and the water companies as justification of their claims to have made major improvements on the sewage pollution of British bathing waters. Indeed, over the past few years major improvements have been made in an effort to comply with the more recent Urban Waste Water Directive, but not to meet the desired level.

A major discrepancy exists between what the public is being told to believe and the true qualifying status of the UK's bathing waters. This poses a serious threat to health as many of the questionable beaches fly Seaside Awards and Blue Flags issued by the Tidy Britain Group. The rules for awarding Seaside Award flags are that they are given to resorts passing the mandatory standards of the EC Bathing Waters Directive. In practice some flags are being flown at resorts that fail the microbiological mandatory requirements of the Directive and also at many more that have not been tested for the presence of the two most infective mandatory pathogens of all - enteroviruses and salmonella!

The following listing gives the true 2005 EC mandatory compliance or failure, or the failure to properly test for all four imperative microbiological parameters as demanded by the Directive. They are made from the actual analysis findings reported by the regional Environmental Agency of samples taken between May and September the previous year. The Public Register of the Environmental Agency regions findings is available on their Internet Web Site www.environment-agency.gov.uk

To pass the current Directive mandatory standard, a bathing water must have no more than 5% of the samples (1 of the 20) showing either more than 10,000 total coliforms per 100ml, or 2,000 faecal coliforms per 100ml. This and this alone is what the DETR's claimed passes are based upon. But what is withheld from knowledge in the United Kingdom is that the Directive also demands that to meet the imperative mandatory standard the bathing water must be shown to have a complete absence of both enteroviruses and salmonella. A single finding of either of these pathogens over the whole previous years test sampling fails the resort to the imperative mandatory standard, as it is these pathogens, not the coliforms, that are responsible for most of the illnesses associated with bathing in sewage polluted waters. They are not investigated because of the cost involved in doing so, yet, although on a different budget, that of the NHS, the cost to public health is far greater!

To spot the factual mandatory compliance of a resort claimed to pass, look on the EA's Web Site for the columns under enteroviruses and salmonella. If you see dashes all the way down the list of twenty findings, then that resort has not been properly tested, so the compliance is unknown, and cannot be claimed as a 'pass'. If you see a '0' or '<1' then it has been tested, and no salmonella or enteroviruses were found to be present. As those few resorts which were tested rarely had more than two tests in the course of the entire year, a pass for these is doubtful. However, we have given these the benefit of the doubt and awarded a 'pass'. If on the other hand a figure greater than '0' (e.g. 1, 2, etc.) is in the column, then enteroviruses or salmonella were proved to be present, hence those resorts prove to fail. It is on this basis, strictly in accordance with the stipulations of the 1975 76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive, that the following qualified compliances can be given. This listing provides a factual PASS, FAIL or an 'UNKNOWN' for every designated UK bathing water according to the actual standards required by the 76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive itself.

False compliances claims for our bathing waters have been ongoing for more than seventeen years now, despite evidence of the malpractice supplied to House of Commons Environmental and DETR Committee Enquiries in 1989/90 and in 1997. The House of Commons Environmental Committee Enquiry into the Disposal of Sewage pointed out the pollution hazard resulting from the Government's "interpretation" of the standards, yet exactly the same false claims of EC compliance have continued unabated under successive governments. The DG-XI Legal Department of the EC have taking actions on the UK Government for their continued failure to comply with the Directive. The EC Commissioner, in answer to a recent question in the European Parliament agreed in the strictest terms that a presence of salmonella or enterovirus fails a resort to the imperative mandatory standard that should have been reached by January 1986, nineteen years ago. Yet, they fail to take action on the continuing deception.

Available on the Environment Agency web site www.environment-agency.gov.uk and given here are the recommended guideline conformities. To meet this non-mandatory standard bathing waters must show no more than 100 faecal coliforms, 100 faecal streptococci or 500 total coliforms per 100 ml in more than 20% of the samples taken, i.e. not more than four failures of the twenty taken throughout the May to September bathing season. The EA site has a simplified listing of each of the twenty samples per site listed as 'Poor', 'Good' or 'Excellent'. If more than sixteen are shown as 'excellent' it passes. If less, it fails. In this listing we have split the guideline passes into PASS (*) for an excellent pass, PASS (B) for a bare pass only just making the grade, a straight PASS or a FAIL. But the imperative mandatory standard to be met, not more than one sample of the twenty coliform tests made throughout the year may be 'poor' but dependant upon the absence of any salmonella or enterovirus also.

As well as status qualifying to the rulings of the EC Directive as given here and the UK governments own version, another set of findings is employed by the Marine Conservation Society in their 'Good Beach Guide'. The MCS pass a bathing water only if all twenty of the faecal and total coliform meet the mandatory value, but, rather surprisingly, they too ignore the status for both salmonella or enterovirus.

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

Scottish Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005

Key: (*) =Excellent Guideline Pass (B) =Bare Guideline Pass

For the year 2004 status, based on the 2003 bathing season findings by SEPA, Scotland's (then) 58 resorts showed two proven passes, three proven failures and 53 resorts of unknown mandatory conformity. A discrepancy was shown between the salmonella and enterovirus tests given on SEPA's web site and those provided by them directly by e-mail which stated that 5 resorts were tested for salmonella and 5 for enteroviruses, albeit only once or twice throughout the entire year. That was an improvement on the previous year when not a single test for either pathogen was conducted throughout the entire year, when not a single bathing water was proved to pass. This year we have 81 designated resorts, none of which were seen to be tested for salmonella or enterovirus, thus yet again we see no proven mandatory standard passes whatsoever. Six failed on Coliforms, the remaining 75 remain as unknown conformity. But 45 passed the guideline standard, 29 failed whilst the remaining seven were not tested at all !

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

Northumbrian Region Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005

Key: (*) =Excellent Guideline Pass (B) =Bare Guideline Pass

Last year the Environment Agency tests at Northumbrians 33 resorts showed not a single proven EC full mandatory standard pass, two proven failures and the remaining 31 of unknown status. This was due to the failure of the Environmental Agency to test for the presence of all the required mandatory parameters. Only four resorts were tested for salmonella and just two for enteroviruses, even less than the previous year. For 2005 we see just two tests for salmonella and two for enteroviruses, both sets of which showed failure. Thus, the 2005 mandatory status of every resort has to be 'unknown' apart from the two proven failures. No proven passes resulted. The guideline compliance was met at 23 bathing waters (21 only just so and none with excellence) with ten resorts failing.

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

Yorkshire Region Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005

Key: (*) =Excellent Guideline Pass (B) =Bare Guideline Pass

Of Yorkshires 23 resorts, the net result of the 2003 analyses that gave the status for 2004 showed that two resorts failed, none were seen to pass and that 21 of Yorkshire's 23 bathing waters were of unknown mandatory conformity. For this year we again see no passes. Staithes is still failing, whilst the remainder are all of unknown conformity. Twelve met the guideline compliance, all but two very narrowly. None showed an excellent pass. Ten failed. Earls Dyke had no tests performed whatsoever again this year, so it is still completely of unknown status.

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

Anglian Region Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005

Key: (*) =Excellent Guideline Pass (B) =Bare Guideline Pass

The tests carried out by the Environment Agency in 2003 (that gave the Anglian Region resorts 2004 status) evidenced that not one of the regions resorts was tested for all four mandatory microbiological parameters as required by the EC Directive. Thus we had no resorts proved to fail, none proved to pass, and all 37 resorts unproven. This year we have four resorts proven to pass, three to fail with the remainder of unknown status. The good news is that only five of the bathing beaches failed the recommended Guideline standard, these being Heacham, Great Yarmouth by the pier, Southwold Denes, Frinton and Clacton's Groyne 41. Walton Beach went totally untested. Five resorts attained an excellent high standard, whilst nine passed very narrowly. It is a great delight to see Cleethorpes and Gorleston-on-Sea now passing the guideline standard, as not many years ago swimming there was more like going through the motions.

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

Thames Region Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005

Key: (*) =Excellent Guideline Pass (B) =Bare Guideline Pass

The 2003 samples giving the 2005 status showed just one proven pass, no failures and seven of unknown mandatory conformity. Once the Thames Environmental Agency (previously the areas National Rivers Authority and prior to that Thames Water) was the only authority in the entirety of the United Kingdom to fully and properly investigate the bathing waters of their area for true Directive mandatory compliance, even identifying the specific enteroviruses, e.g polio. Sadly, after 1995, they acquiesced to the direction made to the Environment Agencies by the Department of the Environment to reduce their sampling frequency for salmonella and enteroviruses. Thus the 2004 Environmental Agency sampling programme has performed no tests for these pathogens again for the 2005 mandatory standard compliance, so we have no passes, no failures, only eight resorts of unknown conformity. But five of these passed the recommended guideline values, one, Shoebury East, excellently so and two only barely. Recognising the vast amount of sewage that went into the Thames in the periods of heavy rainfall this last yerar, this is quite remarkable !

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

Southern Region Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005

Key: (*) =Excellent Guideline Pass (B) =Bare Guideline Pass

In the 1997 bathing season the Southern Environmental Agency analysed every one of their 75 resorts (albeit only twice in the entire year) for both salmonella and enteroviruses, so proving that 40 of the bathing waters then met the imperative mandatory EC standard whilst 35 proved to fail. No bathing waters whatsoever remained of unknown conformity. In 1998, undoubtedly to mask these failures, SEA complied with the governments direction to reduce sampling for salmonella and enteroviruses, so only investigated for these at eight resorts of the Southern region's then 77 bathing waters, so replacing what would have been many proven failures with an 'unknown' mandatory compliance. The 2000 analyses for the 2001 conformity showed that only seven resorts were tested for salmonella and just six for enterovirus, so producing five resorts proving to pass, two failures and 72 resorts of unknown EC mandatory compliance from the then 79 bathing waters. For the year 2002 the 2001 sampling results showed just three resorts tested for salmonella and three for enteroviruses. The 2002 analyses showed only one test for salmonella and two for enteroviruses, both of which failed. 2002 showed two proven passes and two proven failures, with the other 75 of questionable status. 2003 showed two failures, no passes whatsoever and 77 of unknown conformity. For 2004 we saw just one properly tested resort, Worthing, which passed for salmonella but failed on enteroviruses. Thus we had one failure, no passes and all the others incompletely tested, hence of questionable conformity. In the 2004 testing we see 77 bathing waters listed, all with no tests whatsoever for either enteroviruses or for salmonella, so producing not a single mandatory pass, just one proven (coliform) failure and 76 of unknown mandatory conformity for 2005! Fourteen resorts failed the guideline level and forty one only just made the grade. Just nine of them showed an excellent pass.

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

South-West (Wessex) Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005

Key: (*) =Excellent Guideline Pass (B) =Bare Guideline Pass

The pathetic record of failing to test for all four required mandatory microbiological parameters resulted in unknown conformity for 42 of the 47 Wessex resorts for 2001. It was similar the next year when the Wessex region showed just one proven pass, four proven failures and 42 bathing waters with a big question mark hanging over them. The following year saw 45 of undetermined compliance, two proven failures and not one pass. For 2004 we saw just one proven failure at Blue Anchor West and again not one proven pass! Not a single one of the regions bathing waters was tested for either enteroviruses or salmonella and the same has resulted again this year. No mandatory passes, no failures, but every resort of unknown compliance! But we do see 39 passes to the recommended guideline value, twelve of these excellent, fourteen very narrowly so, two unknown and seven failing.

Top ◊ Scottish ◊ Northumbrian ◊ Yorkshire ◊ Anglian ◊ Thames ◊ Southern ◊ South-West (Wessex) ◊ South-West ◊ Welsh ◊ North-West ◊ N Ireland ◊ Summary

South West Region Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2005