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 2006 (2007 status).

The Environment Agency continues to broadcast the government's false claim that over 98% of the United Kingdom's bathing waters reach the imperative mandatory microbiological standards required by the 1975 76/160/EC Bathing Waters Directive, as shown by the following December 2006 Press Announcement, to be found at www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/061109a.htm which reads as follows:

"2006 bathing water results - record mandatory compliance in England and the UK"
"England's best ever bathing water quality results were announced on 9 November by Environment Minister, Ian Pearson.
"In 2006, a record 99.5% of all bathing waters in England met the mandatory standards required by the Bathing Water Directive, compared to 98.8% in 2005. Only 2 of England's 413 monitored bathing waters failed to reach the minimum standards. These were Staithes and Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond. ....The overall UK mandatory (99.5%) and guideline (75.0%) compliance figures were also at record highs in 2006. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland achieved 100% mandatory compliance and Wales had just one failing water. ............"

Scrutiny of the results placed on the Environment Agency's web site shows a very different story. This gives the full unedited and uncensored analytical findings from which one can calculate the precise EC Bathing Waters Directive mandatory standard 'pass', 'fail' or 'unproven' status for each resort. The Minister's claim is shown as unfounded.

The reason is that the results provided for public and press consumption have been based upon compliance with 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 have been ignored. These pathogens must be shown to be absent for a bathing water to conform to the European Bathing Water Directory Mandatory standard. For a full a full description and list of these bacterial and viral pathogens, see the bacterial and pathogen section on this website under www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/sewage.html

In order to further camouflage the number of failures, only rarely have the Environment Agency investigated the presence of these pathogens.

The deception practised is such that by not looking for them it is inferred that they were not found, and thus that they must be absent. This is similar to 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 protests over the past ten years against this deception, the United Kingdom authorities have again based compliance for 2007 on a standard of their own making, one which is seriously short of that demanded by the actual 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive.

These flawed claims are widely publicised without inspection or checking by the media, and are claimed as being the compliance of the United Kingdom resorts to the actual standards required by the EC Directive.

These false claims 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 in an attempt to justify their claims to have made major improvements in tackling the sewage pollution of British bathing waters. It is true that over the past few years major improvements have been made in an effort to comply with the more recent Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, but not nearly sufficient to meet the level demanded by the 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive.

Consequently, 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 the past some flags have flown at resorts that failed 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 listing that follows below gives the true 2007 EC mandatory compliance or failure and reveals, in the overwhelming number of cases, the failure to properly test for all four imperative microbiological parameters as demanded by the Directive.

The listing is made from the actual analytical findings reported by the Environmental Agency of samples taken between May and September of the previous year. The Public Register of the Environmental Agency's regional findings is available on their Internet Web Site (see footnote 1).

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 DEFRA's claimed passes are based upon. However, what is withheld from knowledge in the United Kingdom is that the Directive also demands that in order to meet the imperative mandatory standard the bathing water must also have a complete absence of both enteroviruses and salmonella.

A single finding of either enteroviruses or salmonella over the whole previous year's sampling fails the resort against 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 cost imposed to the NHS and public health is far greater!

To spot the factual mandatory compliance of a resort which is claimed to pass, look on the Environment Agency 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 fully tested, so the compliance is unknown, and thus 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 have been present, and hence those resorts are proven to have failed.

It is on this basis, strictly in accordance with the stipulations of the 1975 76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive, that the following qualified list of 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 compliance claims for our bathing waters have been ongoing for more than twenty 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.

Indeed, the DG-XI Legal Department of the European Commission has taken actions against the UK Government for its failure to comply until recently with the indicator microbiological standards (total coliforms and faecal coliforms) of the Directive.

In answer to a recent question in the European Parliament, the EC Commissioner agreed that, in the strictest terms, the presence of salmonella or enterovirus also fails a resort against the imperative mandatory standard of the Directive - a standard which should have been reached by January 1986. However, the EC government continues to fail to take action against the UK over this continuing deception.

Available on the Environment Agency web site www.environment-agency.gov.uk (see footnote), and also given here, are the recommended guideline conformities.

To meet this guideline, 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.

But for the imperative mandatory standard to be met, not more than one sample of the twenty coliform tests made throughout the year may be 'poor'; and, in the strictest terms, there should also be a total absence of any salmonella or enterovirus.

As well as the qualifying status of a Bathing Water in accordance with the actual terms of the EC Directive as given here, and as well the UK government's own "version" of qualifying status, it must be noted that there is another set of findings and qualifying status which is employed by the Marine Conservation Society in their 'Good Beach Guide'.

The Marine Conservation Society 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 2007

SEPA, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on their website www.sepa.org.uk/data/bathingwaters/interpretation.htm state:

"How Results are determined - Interpretation of Results and Requirements for Monitoring Programmes"
"The Annex to the EC Bathing Water Directive contains information on the requirements for monitoring programmes. It lists the 19 parameters and values which apply to identified bathing waters and states how results should be interpreted. These requirements have been implemented in Scotland by the Bathing Waters (Classification) (Scotland) Regulations 1991. The Directive contains information on two main types of values for water quality standards: mandatory standards which Member States must observe, and stricter guideline values which Member States should endeavour to observe."
"Mandatory Standards"
"Mandatory standards apply to 10 parameters: total coliforms, faecal coliforms, salmonella, enteroviruses, pH, colour, mineral oils, detergents, phenols and transparency. Compliance with the Directive's mandatory standards is based on the counts of total coliforms and faecal coliforms. 95% of samples must comply with the Directive's mandatory standards for both parameters for the site to achieve a pass at this level."

Relating the above statements to the actual sampling and findings shows the claims for mandatory compliance to be highly inaccurate.

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.

At the time (2004), 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. However that was an improvement on the previous year when not a single test for either pathogen was conducted throughout the entire year.

Sadly SEPA seem to have returned to this failure to fully monitor, as we now have 63 resorts, not one of which has been monitored for salmonella or enterovirus; indeed, 13 of these resorts failed to have the requisite 20 coliform tests throughout the year.

Thus now in 2007 not a single Scottish bathing water has been proved to pass the imperative mandatory standard that had to be met by 1985.

And of the 63 bathing waters listed, 22 were proven to have passed the guideline standard, 28 were proven failures, and the remaining 13 of unknown guideline conformity due to an insufficiency of tests throughout the bathing season.

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 2007

In 2005 the Environment Agency's tests at Northumbrian's 33 resorts showed not a single proven EC full mandatory standard pass, two proven failures and the remaining 31 of unknown status.

In 2006 (2007 status) we see 31 resorts, no passes, four faecal coliform failures and the remaining 27 resorts to be of unknown mandatory conformity. This is due to the failure of the Environmental Agency to test for the presence of all the required imperative parameters.

In 2005 there was just one test for salmonella, which passed, and only two for enteroviruses, both of which failed. In 2006 (2007 status) not a single test was made for either of these two pathogens.

Following our formal complaint to the EC, the UK government marginally improved the level of required testing. It instructed the Environment Agency that resorts failing either microbiological indicator test (Total coliforms and Faecal coliforms) during the previous year must be tested for both salmonella and enteroviruses in the following year. Even this half measure has been ignored.

Thus, the 2007 mandatory status of every resort has to be 'unknown' apart from the four proven failures, as no proven passes whatsoever resulted. The guideline compliance was passed at 26 places, an improvement on the previous year.

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 2007

Of Yorkshire's 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 bathing waters were of unknown mandatory conformity.

For this year we see only 21 resorts, and again no passes. Staithes is still failing, whilst the remainder are all of unknown conformity. Fifteen met the guideline compliance, some very narrowly, six failed. Earls Dyke, previously listed, 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 2007

The tests carried out by the Environment Agency in 2003 (indicating the Anglian Region resorts 2004 status) evidenced that not a single one of the regions then 37 resorts was tested for all four of the mandatory microbiological parameters as required by the EC Directive. Thus we then had no resorts proved to fail, none proved to pass, and all unproven.

The following year (i.e. 2004, which indicates 2005 status) we have four resorts proven to pass, three to fail with the remainder of unknown status.

Now again for 2007 we see a total failure to investigate for either enteroviruses or salmonella at any of the current 36 bathing waters. Consequently, contrary to the claims made to the media of 'a full set of passes', in truth not a single Anglian Region resort is proven to comply.

Seven resorts failed the recommended Guideline standard, compared to the previous year when just five failed.

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 akin to 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 2007

At one time, the Thames Environmental Agency (previously the 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 present, e.g. polio.

Sadly, after 1995, they acquiesced to the direction made to the Environment Agency by the Department of the Environment to reduce its sampling frequency for salmonella and enteroviruses.

The result was that the 2004 samples (giving the 2005 status) showed just one proven pass, no failures and seven of unknown mandatory conformity.

The following year the Environmental Agency sampling programme performed no tests whatsoever for these pathogens. So we had no passes, no failures, and eight resorts of unknown conformity. However five of these bathing resorts passed the recommended guideline values, with one, Shoebury East, doing so excellently, and two other resorts only barely.

For 2007 we again see that no tests for salmonella or enteroviruses were conducted in 2006. So we have none of the eight bathing waters passing, none failing, but of course eight resorts of unknown conformity. All but two passed the Guideline requirements.

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 2007

In the 1997 bathing season the Southern Environment Agency analysed every one of their then 75 resorts (albeit only twice in the entire year) for both salmonella and enteroviruses, so proving that 40 of their 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, Southern EA promptly complied with the government's direction to reduce sampling for salmonella and enteroviruses, so only investigated for these pathogens at eight resorts of the Southern region's then 77 bathing waters, thus replacing what would have likely been many proven failures with an 'unknown' mandatory compliance.

The 2000 sampling, for the 2001 status, showed that only seven resorts were tested for salmonella and just six for enterovirus, so producing five resorts proven to pass, two failures and 72 resorts of unknown EC mandatory compliance from the then 79 bathing waters.

The 2001 sampling, for the 2002 status, showed only three resorts tested for salmonella and three for enteroviruses.

The 2002 analyses, for the 2003 status, showed only one test for salmonella and two for enteroviruses, both of which failed. Overall, the 2002 analyses showed two proven passes and two proven failures, with the other 75 of questionable status.

The 2003 sampling, for 2004 status, showed two failures, no passes whatsoever and 77 of unknown conformity, and there was 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, for 2005 status, we saw 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. Also fourteen resorts failed the guideline level, and forty-one only just made this grade. Just nine of them showed an excellent pass.

Now in the 2006 sampling, for 2007 status, not a single test was made for either salmonella or enteroviruses, so giving all of the region's 71 resorts unknown compliance, although all were claimed by the government to be of mandatory conformity. The 2006 sampling also showed that under the guideline standard conformities were 50, with 21 resorts failing. This was a slight degradation on the performance of previous years.

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 2007

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 region's bathing waters was tested for either enteroviruses or salmonella.

For 2005 there were no mandatory passes, no failures, with every resort of unknown compliance! However there were 39 passes against the recommended guideline value, twelve of these excellent, fourteen very narrowly so, two unknown and seven failing.

For 2007 we again see that there have been no tests whatsoever made for either enteroviruses or salmonella on any one of the 45 bathing waters now listed, showing not a single mandatory compliance.

Thirty-five passed the Guideline standard, with ten failures, this a slight degradation on earlier years.

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 2007