Latest Newsletter

Click to view our 'Guide to British Marine Animals'

This page is validated to XHTML 1.0

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 2008 (2009 status).

For many years now The Environment Agency has continued to broadcast the government's false claim that over 98% of the United Kingdom's bathing waters reach the imperative mandatory microbiological standards as required by the 1975 76/160/EC Bathing Waters Directive.

But scrutiny of the analysis results recorded on the Environment Agency's web site shows a very different story. This lists the full unedited and uncensored analytical findings from which one can calculate the true conformity to the 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive mandatory standard as a 'pass', 'fail' or 'unproven' status for each resort. The claim of >98% conformity to the Directive can be seen to be propaganda hype, quite unfounded in fact. The reason is that the results provided for public and press consumption have been based upon the compliance of only two of the four required mandatory microbiological parameters, these being total coliforms and faecal coliforms, the indicator bacteria.

As with previous years, findings of the far more dangerous salmonella and enterovirus pathogens have been ignored. Both of these pathogens must be totally absent from a bathing water for it to conform to the European Bathing Water Directory Mandatory standard. A single finding of either enteroviruses or salmonella over the whole previous year's 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 claimed not to be 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 than any savings made!

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

By government dictate and in order to further camouflage the number of failures only rarely has the Environment Agency investigated the presence of these pathogens. Each and every successive year the tests for them have reduced, with now very few bathing resorts being investigated for them.

The deception practised is that by not looking for them they were not found, and so it is inferred that as they were not recorded then they must be absent. This subterfuge is akin to a person claiming to have passed an examination when they have not even sat for it, but saying, "Well, we didn't fail, so we must have passed!" Despite protests over the past twelve years of this deception, the United Kingdom authorities have again based compliance for 2009 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 fact checking by the media, so are put out for public consumption as being the compliance of the United Kingdom resorts to the actual imperative mandatory standard 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 the required major improvements in tackling the sewage pollution of British bathing waters. It is true that over the past ten years major improvements have been made in an effort to comply with the more recent Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, but not nearly sufficient so as to meet the level demanded by the 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive. Consequently, a major discrepancy exists between what the public is being asked to believe and the true qualifying status of the UK's bathing waters.

This poses a serious threat to health of many seaside recreationalists, as many of the questionable beaches fly Seaside Awards and Blue Flags claiming the degree of excellence. To fly a Blue Flag a resort is supposed to have complied with the Guideline Standard of the EC Bathing Waters Directive The rules for awarding Seaside Award flags are that they are provided to resorts passing the mandatory standards of the EC Bathing Waters Directive. But these flags have been flown at resorts that failed the microbiological mandatory requirements of the Directive and can be seen hoisted 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 gives for each and every UK bathing water its true 2009 EC Bathing Waters Directive Mandatory compliance, alternatively the failure, but will also reveal, as in the overwhelming number of cases, the failure to fully and properly test for all four imperative microbiological parameters as demanded by the Directive. In these cases it is of unknown compliance, and is listed accordingly.

The following listing is composed from the actual analytical findings as reported by the Environmental Agency of all samples they have taken and inspected 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 at 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 samples taken between May and September the previous year) 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 be seen to have a complete absence of both enteroviruses and salmonella.

To spot the factual mandatory compliance of a resort which is claimed to pass, look on the Environment Agency Web Site www.environment-agency.gov.uk 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 tested for these pathogens, so the compliance is unknown, and thus cannot in honesty be claimed as a 'pass'.
Should you see a '0' or '<1' then it has been so tested, and no salmonella or enteroviruses were found to be present. And those few resorts which were tested rarely had more than two tests in the course of the entire year, so a pass for these is doubtful. However, we have given these the benefit of this 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 proven to be present, hence these resorts have failed the imperative mandatory standard and are listed accordingly.

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 each and 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 even 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 in the strictest terms, any 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 continues to fail to take action on this flagrant violation.

Also available on the Environment Agency web site (see footnote) and also given in our listing are the recommended guideline conformities. The Guideline Standard is not mandatory, but is one which the Directive gives as a standard which the authorities should "strive to achieve".
To meet this Guideline 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 sixteen or more are shown as 'excellent' the bathing water passes the Guideline Standard. If less than sixteen, it fails.

But if the imperative Mandatory standard is to be met, not more than one sample of the twenty coliform tests made throughout the year may be 'poor', and there should also be shown to be a total absence of salmonella or enterovirus. Thus we have the inane situation that bathing waters can be shown to pass the recommended Guideline Standard yet fail to meet the imperative Mandatory Standard!

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, there exists another set of findings and qualifying status employed by the Marine Conservation Society in their 'Good Beach Guide'. This is not in accordance with the stipulations of the Directive, but is somewhat better than that of the governments. The Marine Conservation Society pass a bathing water only if all twenty of the faecal and total coliform tests 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 2008

No results whatsoever are given of any tests for salmonella or enteroviruses, so we must assume that no such tests were carried out. Yet on their website (see www.sepa.org.uk/data/bathingwaters/interpretation.htm) SEPA, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency 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 their actual sampling and findings shows SEPA's claims for mandatory compliance to be highly inaccurate, as not a single test has been attempted for either salmonella or enteroviruses at any resort.

In 2004, based on the 2003 findings, SEPA showed the (then) 58 Scottish resorts to have two proven passes, three proven failures and 53 resorts of unknown mandatory conformity. But a serious discrepancy was shown between the salmonella and enterovirus tests given on SEPA's web site and those provided by them to us directly in response to our request to them by e-mail, which claimed 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.

In 2006 SEPA returned to total failure to fully monitor, as for 2007 status we had 63 resorts, not one of which had been monitored for salmonella or enterovirus; indeed, 13 of these resorts failed to have the requisite 20 coliform tests throughout the year. Thus not one bathing water was proved to pass the imperative mandatory standard required that year. 22 resorts 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.

Last year, 2008, the status based upon SEPA's 2007 test findings, again not a single one of the 80 Scottish bathing water had been proved to pass the imperative mandatory standard that should have been met by 1985. But seven failed this on coliform level findings alone.

For this years (2009) imperative mandatory standard status based upon last years findings we see no proven passes whatsoever, six proven failures and the remainder of the bathing waters to be of unknown conformity.

The 2008 findings that are employed to give this years Guideline Standard status was achieved at 40 resorts but was failed at 33.

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 2008

In 2005 the Environment Agency's tests conducted at Northumbrian's 33 resorts showed not a single proven EC full mandatory standard pass, two proven failures and the remaining 31 bathing waters of unknown status. 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. Then we saw only 31 resorts, no passes, four faecal coliform failures and the remaining 27 resorts to be of unknown mandatory conformity; this was due to the failure of the Environmental Agency to test for the presence of all the required imperative parameters.

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/or faecal coliforms) during the previous year must be tested for both salmonella and enteroviruses in the following year. But even this half measure has been ignored.

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

For last year, 2008, the EA's 2007 analyses show that yet again no tests for enteroviruses or salmonella were performed, with the result that we had no proven passes, no proven failures and all bathing waters of unknown compliance. Again twenty six of the resorts passed the Guideline Standard whilst the remaining five were proved to fail.

The findings made in 2008 to give this years mandatory status show every resort to be of unknown conformity, with no proven passes and no proven failures. Eleven failed the recommended Guideline Standard, the remainder passing this.

We receive regular reports from members resident in the region that much sewage debris is frequently to be found on the beaches, put down to storm water overflows discharges, even when no heavy rains have been noted to cause this discharge. More disturbing is that samples showing a failure have been discounted and further testing was made to obtain a pass.

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 2008

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 the year, 2007, we saw only 21 resorts only partially investigated, and again no passes were established. Staithes, a delightful resort but for the ongoing sewage pollution, was still found as failing, whilst the remainder were all of unknown conformity. Fifteen met the guideline compliance, some very narrowly, but six failed. Earls Dyke, previously listed, again had no tests performed whatsoever, so it was of unknown status.

Last year, 2008, twenty-two bathing waters were partly examined. Their Mandatory conformity again showed just Staithes as the one failure, no passes and 21 resorts of unknown status due to the failure of the EA to test neither for enterovirus nor for salmonella. The Guideline Standard was complied with at 17 resorts but failed at five.

This years standard calculated from the 2008 sampling results show that no resorts proved to meet the imperative mandatory standard and that one (Staithes) yet again proved to fail. All the others are shown to be of unknown conformity. The recommended Guideline Standard was achieved at thirteen resorts but failed at seven.

The quality of Yorkshire's bathing water has thus further deteriorated.

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 2008

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 had four resorts proven to pass, three to fail with the remainder of unknown status. From the 2006 EA survey to determine the 2007 status, we again saw a total failure to investigate for either enteroviruses or salmonella at any of the then 36 bathing waters. Seven resorts failed the recommended Guideline standard, compared to the previous year when just five failed.

For last year, 2008, the level of mandatory compliance from the EA's 2007 findings show that of the then 38 resorts there were again no mandatory standard passes, no failures were shown, but all were of unknown conformity. Consequently, contrary to the claims made to the media of 'a full set of passes', in truth not a single Anglian Region resort was proven to comply.

Tests to show the Guideline conformity showed that 28 of the bathing waters passed that standard whilst ten failed. This was three more than the previous year and five more than the year before that, so it could be seen that the situation was worsening.

This year, 2009, the situation appears to be a little better, shown by the fact that only seven resorts failed the recommended Guideline status, with 32 passing. But again in 2009 we find all resorts are of unknown mandatory compliance conformity with not a single proven pass.

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 2008

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. Thus, sadly the result was that the 2004 samples (giving the 2005 status) showed just one proven pass, no failures and seven of unknown mandatory conformity due to incomplete sampling.

The following year the Environmental Agency sampling programme performed no tests whatsoever for the salmonella and enteroviruses pathogens. So we saw 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 the 2007 status we again saw that no tests for salmonella or enteroviruses were conducted in 2006. So last year we had none of the eight bathing waters passing, none failing, but of course eight resorts of unknown conformity. All but two passed the Guideline requirements.

The 2008 level of mandatory conformity calculated from the 2007 EA sampling showed that although all 8 resorts passed the coliform requirements, not one had the presence of enteroviruses or salmonella investigated. Thus again we saw no proven passes, no proven failures, only eight resorts of unknown compliance.The recommended Guideline level was attained by four resorts last year, whilst the remaining four failed this standard.

Now we have the 2009 findings, and again find that no tests for salmonella or enteroviruses were conducted in 2006, so resulting in all eight bathing waters found to be of unknown mandatory compliance.

Again the recommended Guideline standard was attained by four resorts this year, whilst the other four continued to failed this level.

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 2008

In the 1997 bathing season the Southern Environment Agency fully 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 attempt 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 most likely been many proven failures with 'unknown' mandatory compliances.

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, all of which failed. Overall, the 2002 analyses of the 79 resorts showed two proven passes and two proven failures, with the other 75 of unknown mandatory conformity.

The 2003 sampling, for 2004 status, showed two failures, no passes whatsoever and 77 of unknown conformity. 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 rest incompletely tested, hence of highly 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. Fourteen resorts failed the guideline level, and forty-one only just made this grade. Just nine of them showed an excellent pass.

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

For the 2008 mandatory status made from the EA's sampling programme from May to September 2007, 79 bathing resort waters were listed but two of them (Lee on Solent and Hillhead) failed to receive any sampling whatsoever. Every water except these two was claimed as a mandatory pass, claimed on the coliform findings only. But again not a single test was made for either salmonella or enteroviruses, so giving each and every one of the region's bathing waters an unknown conformity. The recommended Guideline Standard was shown to be achieved by 61 resorts, with just two failing.

The 2009 mandatory standard again shows no proven passes whatsoever and just one proven failure (Sandgate) as yet again not a single bathing water was monitored for either salmonella or enteroviruses, so giving all of the region's resorts to be unknown mandatory compliance. Guideline compliance tests for this year proved the failure of 16 bathing waters, an 800% increase over those of the previous year, so indicating that the situation has further degraded.

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 2008

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 even way back in 2001. It was similar the following 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 next year saw 45 of undetermined compliance, two proven failures and not one pass, whilst 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 proven 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 saw that there had been no tests made whatsoever for either enteroviruses or salmonella on any one of the 45 bathing waters listed, showing not a single mandatory compliance. Thirty-five bathing waters then passed the Guideline standard, with ten failures, this slight degradation on earlier years.

For the 2008 status last year, based on the EA's investigations made between May and September 2007, we saw that 49 resorts were listed, with one having experienced no testing whatsoever. None were proven to pass the Mandatory Standard, equally none to fail this level either, as yet again there had been no tests made whatsoever for either enteroviruses or salmonella on any of the bathing waters listed. So we ended up with 49 bathing waters of unknown mandatory compliance. Thirty-seven of the resorts were seen to pass the recommended Guideline Standard, with 11 failing and one unknown due to a failure to test.

For this years compliance calculated from EA tests made between May and September 2008, we see that just one resort of the forty-six listed shown to fail the imperative standard required, with no proven passes whatsoever, because not a single resort was tested for enteroviruses or salmonella. This leaves 45 resorts as being of unknown mandatory compliance. The recommended Guideline Standard was achieved at 36 resorts with 12 proven failures, one worse than the previous year.

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 2008

Over the years the South West Region of the Environment Agency has been steadily reducing the sampling that should be undertaken to prove or disprove the presence of salmonella and enteroviruses. Where earlier they tested 81 resorts for salmonella and 19 for enteroviruses out of their 141 bathing waters, for 2001 (2002 status) they reduced sampling for both of these parameters to just 24 resorts. The result was that for that summer holiday season we reached a figure of only 13 bathing waters proven to comply, 11 evidenced to fail, and 118 resorts of non-determined mandatory compliance.

In the 2002 sampling, for the 2003 status, we saw just six tests for salmonella (which all passed) and six for enteroviruses (none of which passed). Despite the requirement given by the EA to do so, even resorts that failed on coliforms the previous year were not tested!

In 2003 sampling to provide the 2004 status, not one of the 141 bathing waters proved to pass, seven proved to fail and the remaining 134 were shown to be untested and thus of unknown mandatory conformity.

In the 2004 testing to provide the 2005 status, just five resorts were examined for the presence of enteroviruses and six for salmonella, all but one of which failed the mandatory requirement. Indeed, three of the bathing waters were not even tested for coliforms! So for the record we had just one proven compliant resort, five proven failures and 135 of unproven and unknown conformity.

In the 2006 testing, for the 2007 status, we saw not a single test for either enteroviruses or salmonella, a truly remarkable escape mechanism, as by this means we saw no failures for these pathogens. But by the same token we see no passes to the imperative mandatory standard either. The 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive clearly states that the public have a right to know about the quality of their bathing waters. The 2007 status (based on 2006 sampling results) showed that of the then 134 designated bathing waters, sixteen failed the guideline whilst 118 passed.

Last years 2008 status as given by the previous 2007 May to September findings of the EA, we had 142 bathing resorts part monitored in all, although one of these had been closed and eight of them had no data supplied whatsoever. It had to be assumed that these nine were not subjected to any tests. Two resorts were proved to fail the Mandatory Standard whilst none were proved to pass. We thus had 140 bathing waters of unknown compliance. As for the recommended Guideline Standard, 22 resorts failed whilst 111 passed.

This year, 2009, based upon the Environment Agency findings made between May and September the previous year 2008, shows eight mandatory failures, no proven passes whatsoever and the vast majority of unknown conformity due to incomplete testing. The recommended Guideline Standard was failed at 31 resorts, both levels much worse than the previous year.

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

Welsh Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2008

In 1998 The DETR claimed that 64 of the then 68 Welsh bathing water sites passed and that just 4 failed the mandatory values. The Welsh Environment Agency publication 1998 Bathing Waters Report Wales admitted only 3 mandatory failures. The facts were that just 5 of the 68 Welsh resorts were proven to pass the full Mandatory EC standard, whilst 14 failed and the remaining 49, though all tested twice in the whole year for salmonella, had no enterovirus tests conducted whatsoever, so were therefore of unknown compliance.

In 1999 we had 70 designated resorts of which seven were proven mandatory passes, nine proven failures and the remaining 54 incompletely tested, so demonstrating unknown compliance. 52 resorts were not salmonella tested and 54 were not tested for the presence of enteroviruses. Astoundingly the DETR, through the EA reports, claimed that 69 resorts passed and only one failed the mandatory level!

In 2000 we had five more resorts added to give 75 resorts in all. Of these only one proved to pass the EC mandatory requirements for all pathogens whilst just one proved to fail, so leaving 73 of bathing waters resorts as being highly questionable and of unknown mandatory compliance.

The tests in 2002, for the 2003 status, showed 70 of unknown conformity, five failures and no proven passes whatsoever.

The tests in 2003, for the 2004 status, showed that only one resort was tested for enteroviruses and one other for salmonella. The results showed three mandatory failures, 72 of unknown conformity and no passes.

In the following year we then had 76 resorts, all of which were proved to be of unknown mandatory compliance as not a single test was undertaken for either for enteroviruses or for salmonella.

Based on the testing performed in 2006, the year 2007 claim was that of the 64 bathing waters all but one (Aberafan) had passed the imperative mandatory standard. The Environment Agency's actual test results do clearly show this single failure, but also show the other 63 resorts as being of unknown conformity, because once again no salmonella or enterovirus testing was undertaken. This equates to no Welsh mandatory passes whatsoever, one mandatory failure and 63 of questionable status. The Guideline results for that year showed nine failures, the remainder to pass.

For last year, 2008, the EA sampling analyses showed 78 resorts, six of which were completely untested. No proven Mandatory passes resulted, just one failure, with 77 of the bathing waters of unknown compliance as no salmonella or enterovirus testing was undertaken. The Guideline standard was achieved by 59 resorts, failed at 13, but was unproven either way at the resorts that remained untested.

So, as well as masking Mandatory failures by changing many failures in resorts with unknown conformity, we saw bathing waters taken out of the designated list, rather than rectifying the continuing sewage pollution, which, judging by the above and the increase in Guideline failing resorts, was worsening.

The 2009 situation is that yet again not a single bathing water was tested for either enteroviruses or salmonella in the whole of the 2008 May to September Bathing Season, so not a single resort is shown to comply to the imperative mandatory standard required. Eighteen waters, an increase of five on the previous year, failed to meet the recommended Guideline Standard.

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

North West Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2008

The North West Region Environment Agency once were to be congratulated on their thoroughness and honesty in reporting their findings, as they were the only United Kingdom region to have responsibly tested for all four EC mandatory microbiological parameters. However, despite this sampling for all four microbiological parameters, only two samples for salmonella and two for enteroviruses were normally taken throughout the entire bathing season, when 20 should really be the required minimum number for mandatory pathogens.

The result of this foregoing testing regime was that each and every resort in the north-west region failed the mandatory requirements due to the proven presence of enteroviruses. This caused the Blackpool area to be labelled as having the dirtiest and most polluted bathing waters, when in fact they were honest and forthright in reporting the sampling that showed the true status. Other regions, had they been monitored fully, would have been shown to have many more mandatory failing resorts.

Of the 34 resorts tested in 1999, 17 were proven to pass the full mandatory standard whilst an equal number failed. (The government claimed 23 passes and 11 failures that year!) The 2000 testing, for the 2001 status, showed 18 resorts to pass and 15 to fail, with only one being of unproven compliance. The 2001 testing, for the 2002 status, proved 20 resorts to pass, 13 to fail and one of unknown compliance.

A sudden amazing change came about the following year. This arose following the imposition of the huge £87,000 per day fine imposed by the European Court on 13th November 2002 for the UK's failure to meet the mandatory standard as required by Directive. This European Court judgement was based upon just three of the Blackpool area's failing bathing waters.

The mind of our government must have been focused to the fact that the only way to stop the massive daily fine was to claim that the failing resorts met the coliform standards. Indeed, by some miracle, it was claimed that they all so did. A sudden and remarkable reduction of coliforms (on which the fine was based) came about, although all the resorts still failed the mandatory standard requirement of a zero finding of enteroviruses. Enteroviruses were discovered present at every resort in the north-west.

The 2003 test results, giving the compliance for 2004, showed that 16 of the region's 34 resorts were tested for salmonella, and that all passed. Sixteen were tested for enteroviruses, of which 12 passed. With all coliform tests claimed to pass, this gave 11 passes, 5 failures and 18 resorts not fully tested, these therefore being of unknown compliance.

As the original judgement of the European Court based it's finding on coliform non-compliance, it is very doubtful that the European Commission could now go back to re-imposing the fine on a different vector, i.e. enteroviruses. This would almost certainly have required a new legal case, and this would require many years to bring about just as the original legal case had done.

The tests in 2004, giving the 2005 status, showed all 35 North-west resorts except Haverigg passing the imperative mandatory coliform concentrations, and that twelve passed on salmonella and enteroviruses too, but 21 were not so monitored. Thus we saw 12 bathing waters passing, 2 failing and 20 of unknown mandatory conformity. The recommended guideline standard was achieved at seven resorts, five only just, with no excellent passes. Twenty-seven failed this level.

In 2007, we saw a pass claimed for just thirty resorts listed. But the 2006 EA test results showed that 23 of these were tested neither for enteroviruses nor salmonella. Only seven resorts were tested for enteroviruses, of which six passed and one failed. Eight were tested for salmonella, all of which were claimed to pass. Thus we finished up with 6 resorts known to be compliant to the imperative mandatory standard, 1 proven failure and 23 of unknown conformity. The Guideline conformity was met at eight bathing waters, 22 failed to meet this standard.

In 2008, the 2007 sampling results by the EA show that of the 34 resorts, only 32 were part monitored, Blackpool North and Clevelys having been 'closed' rather than corrected. Of those analysed, two failed, none were proven to pass, whilst the other 30 remained undetermined due to a complete failure to test a single resort for either salmonella or enteroviruses. Of the 32 monitored, 10 passed the recommended Guideline standard whilst 22 failed.

For this year 2009, based upon the Environmental Agency 2008 bathing season findings, we find that not a single bathing water has passed the imperative mandatory requirement. Four resorts failed to reach this because of high coliform levels.

The Guideline conformity was met at just six bathing waters, four less than the previous year. 27 failed to meet this standard. Blackpool North was not tested at all, presumably due to its grim condition. Soon now, we will soon be seeing the implementation of a new Bathing Waters Directive which bases microbiological compliance on quite different parameters, and these no longer include the enterovirus or salmonella requirements. This has already been passed in the European Parliament, and a new Bathing Waters Directive is about to come into force.

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

Northern Ireland Bathing Water Resorts Guide For 2008

Carnlough has four sets of data "which should be waived because of abnormal weather" said the Heritage and Environment Service of Northern Ireland last year. If these results were taken out, Carnlough would achieve the mandatory standards but would still fail the guideline standards.

There are no results of tests for salmonella or enteroviruses, so we have assumed that no tests were carried out. Yet the Heritage and Environment Service claims: "On two occasions during the season, the presence or absence of salmonella and enteroviruses are monitored."

Northern Ireland's Environmental & Heritage Service provided the results for this area last year, as they do not appear on the Environment Agency website. They were to be congratulated in 2003 as they then responsibly tested every one of their then 16 resorts for both salmonella and enteroviruses, albeit only twice per beach throughout the entire year. Every resort was proven to pass all four EC mandatory microbiological standards.

In 2006 Northern Ireland was the only region in the entirety of the UK that could be once be claimed to be seen to meet the full microbiological testing requirements that became law in 1985. Where other regions had obviously acquiesced to the government's demand to reduce testing for enterovirus and salmonella, Northern Ireland only followed this direction in 2005 when not a single test was done for either pathogen that year, so showing that not one of the resorts proved to pass the imperative standard demanded. They appeared in 2006 to have returned to meet the required obligations. The net result is that for 2007 we had 27 bathing waters, all but four of which were claimed to have passed the microbiological limits in all four mandatory categories.

The 2008 results composed from the NIEHS findings of the previous year 2007 showed that only 20 resorts of the 27 were monitored. None were seen to prove to pass the imperative Mandatory Standard as again not a single test for enterovirus or salmonella was conducted. Three failed on coliforms, leaving 24 of unknown mandatory compliance. Ten resorts showed to pass the recommended Guideline Standard whilst seven failed.

For this year, 2009, based upon the previous years findings, we see that not a single test has been conducted for tested for either salmonella or enteroviruses, so we have no proven passes whatsoever to the imperative mandatory standard.

Fifteen resorts showed to pass the recommended Guideline Standard whilst ten failed.

Our NI members report serious levels of visible sewage pollution in places. Action is awaited on this score.

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

Regional and National Mandatory Compliance to 76/160/EC Bathing Waters Directive for 2008

In 2008 we found that only 2 (0.34%) of the UK's then 588 bathing beaches proved to fully comply with the 1975 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive Imperative Mandatory Standard. The previous year, 2007, it was 29 (5.5%) of the UK's then 530 bathing beaches. This year we find that not a single bathing water of the current 587 resorts were proven to fully comply because 564 of them (96.1%) were not tested for all the four mandatory microbiological parameters required to evidence this.

The Government claim 99.8% compliance. They have falsified compliance to the Directive by counting the two coliform concentrations only, and have failed the requirement that passes should be based on all four mandatory microbiological parameters which include salmonella and enteroviruses. Thus the conformity of those bathing waters not so tested is unknown. Most of Britain's 587 bathing waters have been assumed to conform to the imperative mandatory standard rather than having been evidenced to do so.

76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive Standards and Values:-

To pass the 76/160/EC BWD Mandatory (imperative) standard, there must be no more than 10,000 Total Coliforms per 100ml, and no more than 2,000 Faecal Coliforms per 100ml in more than one sample throughout the year in question. Thus one sample failing of the twenty tests normally made in any one year will allow a narrow pass. Two or more failing the coliform limits indicate a failure. Additional to the coliforms there must be no enteroviruses or salmonella present whatsoever. If in the course of an entire year a single finding of either enteroviruses or salmonella results, that resort fails the mandatory standard of the Directive.

The EC Guideline standard is based upon coliform and streptococci bacterial findings only, and does not include the enterovirus and salmonella pathogens listed under the 76/160/EC Directive imperative mandatory requirements. Thus, it is possible that resorts can pass the bacterial guideline standard when they have failed the mandatory due to findings of the other far more virulent pathogens, were they investigated.

The guideline standard is a standard that 'the authorities should strive to meet', but is not legally required unlike the imperative mandatory standard. Enteroviruses and salmonella do not appear in the Guideline Standard, but no more than four samples in the year (80%) must exceed 500 Total Coliforms per 100ml, 100 Faecal Coliforms per 100ml or 100 Faecal Streptococci per 100ml. Those that do pass are classed as 'excellent', so if 16 or more of 'excellent' notation appear in a given year, the guideline standard has been accomplished — yet maybe not the mandatory!

Full detail on the 76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive is to be found by going to: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28007.htm

The analyses of the test findings are published on the Environment Agency's web site. Although the government's interpretation of the findings is not factual, the detailed test results published on the Environment Agency Web Site are. They can be found via Internet by going to www.environment-agency.gov.uk. On the homepage click on 'What's in Your Backyard'. Next click on 'Find Your Environment' and input your postcode, town, city or village in the space provided. A map of your area will then appear with Bathing Water and four other definitions listed. If you now highlight 'What's on that Map' and 'Query Layer' for Bathing Water. Click on the Bathing Water 'spot', it will bring up the annual Quality Classifications. If you then click on the year required all data you require for all tests will be given for that year.

As well as the coliform levels the testing for salmonella and enteroviruses can be seen here. If a dash '—' is in the column(s) for these, no samples have been taken, so the status is unknown, and cannot be proved to pass, or to fail. If a zero '0' is present, it was tested then and found absent. If all tests were made and comply, the resort passes. If a one '1' (or more) is seen in either the enteroviruses or salmonella column, then these have been found to be present, thus the resort fails the mandatory standard.

The simplified results presented as 'Excellent' 'Good' and 'Poor' are misleading. A 'poor' rating is only given by the UK government when the coliforms exceed the limit. That far worse pathogens such as enteroviruses or salmonella may be present is ignored, much to the danger of the health and well being of the water user!

A risk of infection is posed to those innocently entering sewage polluted waters believing them to pass the standards of the 76/160/EC Bathing Waters Directive. Many failing resorts have been flying flags claiming compliance to the EC mandatory standard(s) when in fact they may never have been monitored to evidence this, and worse, in some cases proved to fail.

Determining the Status for the year

The results of findings for the previous year decide the following year's conformity status (i.e. 2008 results for 2009 status). Thus, by the study of these, you will be able to calculate the conformity of any UK resort to the required standards. You will also be able to see the historical results from May 2004 onward by studying the Environmental Agency web-page for the findings.

Changing the Goal Posts

With the discrepancies abounding under the old 1975 76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive, it became obvious that a new Directive without escape clauses was necessary, as loopholes readily used by first the UK and later taken up by other administrations meant that health protection and meaningful information were no longer being addressed under the 1975 76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive as was the intention.

As requested by the EC in the consultative process, MARINET, the North Sea Action Group, Surfers Against Sewage and the Marine Conservation Society provided their ideas and ideals with consultation on this. For the past many years Dr.Caroline Lucas MEP and the Greens has been avidly fighting in the European Parliament to have our main points included.

These included that full sampling for all pathogens must be applied, that factual reporting be demanded, that all year round sampling was needed so as to protect the health of water skiers, sail boarders, jet-skiers and all those brave people that swim throughout the year. Further that sampling and storage techniques be set and standardised so as to present the levels found at the sampling point rather than the far lower levels brought about by coliform decay in transport and storage. Sadly, commercial vested interests with their powerful lobbying powers had their way and all of our recommendations for the improvement of the Directive in terms of public health and environmental protection were ignored.

After much debate the new Directive numbered 2007/7/EC was eventually passed by the European Parliament on 15th February 2006. It came into force in the UK from 24th March 2008, will apply to the future years sampling programme and attributed conformity. Full detail of this revised Directive is to be found by visiting the EU website, see: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28007.htm
The main features of this revised Bathing Water Directive and further information can be found at the DEFRA website by going to: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/bathing/revision.htm

Limitations of 2007/7/EC

This revised Directive will now only have two microbiological parameters to monitor: Intestinal enterococci and Escherichia coli. The original requirement to monitor for the real pathogens, salmonella and enteroviruses, has been dropped.

Also, the new Directive will allow for the discounting (ignoring) of up to 15% of poor samples (failures) at some bathing sites if it can be argued that these failures were due to short-term pollution events. It is thus possible for new samples to be taken until the required pass is possible. Instead of testing once a fortnight, the new regime sets a minimum of only four samples needing to be taken during the bathing season (i.e. one a month) with an additional sample just before the season opens.

Furthermore the new Directive allows for a "failed result" to be struck off if it can be argued that it was due to exceptional circumstances (i.e. unusually severe weather bringing about sewage overspills). The definition of 'unusual' is that it must not be expected to occur again within four years. Once a failed result is struck off under this procedure, a new sample is taken after the exceptional event has passed, and the result from this new sample is entered into the results sheet.

The new Directive is clearly the product of a much simplified compromise, doing away with the different mandatory and guideline compliance levels in the original 76/160/EC Bathing Water Directive. MARINET has serious concerns in that many of the points for inclusion made throughout our submissions have been omitted. The bad news is that the frequency of monitoring is to be reduced, salmonella and enterovirus have been left out of the parameters to be tested for, and recreational waters such as those used by water skiers, surfers and the like are not to be included.

However, the little good news is that factual information to the vulnerable public has to be given, and that the assessment which will be given in terms of a rather over-simplified 'Excellent', 'Good' and 'Poor' quality status may, in reality, be seen by the public as possibly being more meaningful.

Rather than relating to the original concentrations of coliforms per 100ml of bathing water and the other pathogens as before, new methods of bacterial assessment are to be employed to provide a single standard rating. Although at first sight this methodology appears to be inferior to the standards of the previous Directive, it does in fact produce a more meaningful understanding in that it appears not to be easily 'misinterpreted' (a polite word for both 'evaded' and 'fiddled') as was the earlier 76/160/EC BWD.

Whilst not providing the ideal standard indication, as would have been provided by the application of the full testing regime of the original Directive, they do at least show a more meaningful indication than the present situation where we are experiencing false claims of compliance, leading to misleading propaganda about the true quality of our bathing waters.

Interpreting the findings

It must be recognised that had the resorts of 'unknown compliance' been fully tested many of these might have passed. Similarly, many would undoubtedly have failed. A more honest presentation of the actual findings would have provided the public with the information needed to assess the health risk and safety of swimming at any particular resort.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges and gives thanks Malcolm Scott for painstakingly extracting the detailed analysis data from the official sources, to Hugh Rout for the conversion of this to the website format requirements and to Stephen Eades for double checking the accuracy. The provision of the detailed analysis on the Environment Agency web site is acknowledged as is the data provided by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Northern Ireland Environmental & Heritage Service, so permitting MARINET to provide the true 76/160/EEC Bathing Water Directive compliance for each bathing resort in the United Kingdom for this year.

This 'Good Beach Guide' has been appearing for the past ten years and more, but it may be the last as the new strategy and revised Directive will not permit an accurate picture to be given in the next and future years.

Pat Gowen, 12th June 2009

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