FHDC Sewage Testing Motion Demands Evidence on Romney Marsh and East Stour Pollution

On 1 April, Folkestone & Hythe District Council has a chance to do something painfully obvious but surprisingly rare in local politics: stop holding yet another round of worthy conversations about dirty water and start gathering proper evidence.

At Wednesday’s Full Council meeting, councillors will consider a motion from Cllr Tony Hills (Con), seconded by Cllr David Godfrey (Con), asking Cabinet to bring forward urgent, costed options for a targeted water-testing programme covering major open sewers and connected watercourses on Romney Marsh and in the East Stour catchment. The motion also asks for options to test for E. coli and other indicators of untreated sewage, to explore antimicrobial-resistance screening where practicable and lawful, to seek cooperation from the Environment Agency, Southern Water, Kent County Council, UKHSA and academic partners, and to report any agreed findings publicly to councillors and residents. FHDC’s own background paper confirms all that, and confirms too that water quality has already been a recurring issue at council meetings over the last two to three years.

           

Why does this matter? Because in a coastal district, filthy inland water is not some sealed-off inland hobby. It goes somewhere. Official bathing-water profiles already say that marsh drainage and sewers discharge into the sea. The Dymchurch profile says Clobsden, Marshland and Hoorne’s Sewers drain into the sea south of the bathing-water sampling point. The Littlestone profile says the New Romney Main Sewer drains through the marsh and into the sea near that bathing water. And FHDC’s own beach page currently says both Dymchurch and Littlestone are rated “poor” and that bathing is not advised. Not every ditch ends at the same beach, but the broader point is inescapable: rivers and open sewers flow onwards, not into a magic cupboard where pollution politely disappears.

That is why every sea swimmer in this district ought to be behind this motion. So should every café, kiosk, holiday-let owner, campsite and other seaside business in places like Dymchurch and Littlestone. FHDC’s own beach pages sell those places as visitor destinations with parking, food and drink, picnic areas, play space and other attractions. A council website that invites people down to the coast while also warning that bathing is not advised is not exactly the tourism slogan anyone was hoping for.

And let us be honest about where we are. This council has not ignored the issue in the sense of never discussing it. It has discussed it plenty. FHDC’s own paper says officers and members regularly engage with Southern Water, the Environment Agency and the Internal Drainage Board. The council’s 2024 bathing-water signage report records a quarterly update meeting, a monthly Bathing Water Steering Group, and a push for more testing and species DNA work. But that same report also explains why digital signs were rejected: the information was often delayed, historic or needed verification. In other words, there has been no shortage of meetings, but there is still a shortage of hard, district-led evidence about what is in these inland waters and where it is coming from.

That is exactly why this motion has real force. It is not pretending a single vote will clean a sewer, mend a pipe or transform a beach by teatime. It is saying something more adult: before you can fix a problem properly, you need evidence that is local, robust and independently gathered. Even Tony Vaughan MP, on his own public pages, makes much the same point. He says he is working with Southern Water, the Environment Agency and FHDC to identify local sources of pollution, and in his newsletter he says that without identifying the root cause there can be no meaningful plan to eliminate it. He has also said Southern Water had told him it was aiming to roll out community water testing from 1 February 2026. So Labour councillors do not have to search very hard for a political reason to back testing. Their own MP has already been arguing for more data and harder local scrutiny.

Nor should the Greens struggle with the principle. FHDC’s own officer comments say the proposed water-quality testing has positive climate and ecology implications and aligns with the council’s Climate Action Plan and District Wide Carbon Strategy. If you call yourself green, this is about as green as it gets: finding out what is in the water, where it is coming from, and what that means for habitats, biodiversity and public health. Voting for evidence should not require spiritual torment.

Now for the caveats, because this is where the grown-up bit comes in. FHDC’s paper is perfectly candid that there is no approved budget yet. It says the scale of testing proposed would require specialist external consultants, that further DNA or species-marker work may be needed to help identify possible sources, and that council enforcement may be difficult where activity is regulated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations or other legislation. All true. But none of that is an argument for voting the motion down. It is an argument for doing the work properly instead of pretending the district can PowerPoint its way out of the problem.

Indeed, even Southern Water’s own public material points to a messy picture that cries out for better evidence, not less. Its 2024 bathing-water season report says it has established a community-based steering group in Folkestone and Hythe meeting monthly with the council, the Environment Agency and the Internal Drainage Board. It says St Mary’s Bay improved to “Sufficient”. It also says investigations have involved ammonia and E. coli monitoring in surface-water sewers and the “new sewer” watercourse, and refers to illegal connections, leaking sewers and leaky cess pits found and fixed locally, including in Littlestone. That is not the picture of one neat, easily boxed-off problem. It is the picture of a complicated pollution landscape in which sewage infrastructure, drainage, runoff and other contamination sources can overlap. Which is, again, a rather strong argument for testing rather than shrugging.

There is a bigger reason this matters too. If proper testing produces evidence pointing in the right direction, it gives the council a firmer factual base for whatever follows, whether that means regulatory pressure, public-health action, scrutiny recommendations or, if the evidence warrants it, statutory-nuisance proceedings. That legal route is not some wild fantasy. Section 259 of the Public Health Act 1936 treats a foul ditch, gutter or watercourse as a statutory nuisance, and that feeds into section 79(1)(h) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, bringing it within the wider nuisance regime and the council’s duty to inspect and investigate. Put simply, without testing, the council cannot know whether the evidence is strong enough to justify serving an abatement notice on Southern Water or another responsible party. And if contamination is already occurring, with every reason to think it is likely to continue or recur unless something changes, then refusing to gather the evidence starts to look less like caution and more like wilful inertia.

That is why this motion deserves support well beyond the Conservative benches. It is measured enough to be credible and important enough to matter. It does not promise miracles; it promises evidence. In a district where official beach information already says people should not bathe at Dymchurch and Littlestone, that ought not to be controversial. It ought to be the bare minimum. And if any councillor chooses to vote against it, or hide behind an abstention, they will be choosing not to be part of the solution but part of the problem.

And if other councils in Kent and beyond are watching, they should stop watching and start copying. This is exactly the kind of motion that ought to travel. Local authorities are forever telling residents they are “concerned”. Fine. Concern is easy. Evidence is harder. Action harder still. So test the water, publish the findings and follow the facts wherever they lead. And if those facts show a statutory nuisance, councils should stop hiding behind process and start using the powers Parliament has already given them: serve an abatement notice on the responsible party and, if that notice is not complied with, take the case to the magistrates’ court, where conviction and fines can follow. That is what these powers are for. Not to sit decoratively on the statute book while polluted water keeps flowing to the sea and everyone waits for somebody else to grow a backbone.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness