Comment

Representation ID: 23036

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

Attachment: PDF DI Wastewater Treatment Query Template BCP July 2021

Potential impact of proposed developments on sewage treatment works Date
These are desktop assessments using readily available information and have not been subjected to detailed hydraulic analysis
General comment regarding treatment capacity:
Whilst sewage treatment works may not have sufficient spare capacity to accept the levels of development being proposed in its catchment area this does not necessarily mean that development
cannot take place. Under Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 sewerage undertakers have an obligation to provide additional treatment capacity as and when required. Where necessary
we will discuss any discharge consent implications with the Environment Agency. If there are specific issues which may prevent or delay the provision on additional capacity these have been highlighted below


[Headline data from table headings summarised below, further detail in document if needed]
1. Sewage Treatment Works Name
2. Estimate headroom based on current quality performance (RAG)
3. Future quality issues (RAG)
4. Physical constraints regarding provision of additional treatment capacity (RAG)
[sites as below]
1. BARNHURST (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
4. None
AMP7 scheme for CM - sufficient spare capacity on site for the proposed growth.

1. COVEN HEATH (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
4. None
AMP7 scheme for CM - sufficient spare capacity on site for the proposed growth.


1. GOSCOTE (WRW)
2. Significant
3. Probable issue
4. Limited potential to provide additional capacity
Scheme for quality purposes. Sufficient spare capacity to accommodate proposed growth. Ammonia performance is challenging (unknown discharge into sewerage system).

1. GOSPEL END (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
4. None
AMP7 scheme for quality purposes, scope also includes reduction of DWF to 1,800m3/d which will reduce the spare capacity on site. There will still be spare capacity even though at the moment there is no growth proposed for this site.

1. LITTLE ASTON (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
4. None

Sufficient spare capacity to accommodate proposed growth.

1. LOWER GORNAL (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
None
AMP7 quality scheme - this site will close and flows will be transferred to Roundhill. Any load from the new dwellings would also have to be redirected.

1. MINWORTH (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
4. None
Sufficient spare capacity to accommodate proposed growth.

1. RAY HALL (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
4. None
AMP7 scheme for CM. Sufficient spare capacity to accommodate proposed growth.

1. ROUNDHILL (WRW)
2. Minimal
3. None
4. None
AMP7 scheme for quality purposes and allowance to treat tranferred load from Lower Gornal. DWF ill be increased to 64,500m3/d which will create spare headroom sufficient to accommodate the proposed growth.

1. TRESCOTT (WRW)
2. Significant
3. None
4. None
Sufficient spare capacity to accommodate proposed growth.

1. WALSALL WOOD (WRW)
2. Minimal
3. Probable issue
4. None
Sufficient spare capacity can accommodate majority of proposed growth. Ammonia performance is challenging.

1. WILLENHALL (WRW)
2. None
3. None
4. None
Load transferred to Minworth STW