Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 13 May 2024

© Crown copyright 2024

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/bathing-waters-proposed-designation-of-27-new-bathing-waters-in-england/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response

Executive summary

Defra held a consultation on proposals to designate 27 new sites as bathing waters under the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1675) (the ‘Regulations). The consultation ran from 26 February 2024 to 10 March 2024.

Water quality at designated bathing waters in England is monitored by the Environment Agency (EA) during the bathing season, which in England runs from 15 May to 30 September, and bathing waters are classified annually as excellent, good, sufficient or poor. If water quality does not meet the legally required standards, the EA will investigate the sources of pollution and recommend remedial measures to make improvements.

The proposed bathing waters Defra consulted on in 2024 were:

  • Church Cliff Beach, Dorset
  • Coastguards Beach, River Erme, Devon
  • Coniston Boating Centre, Coniston Water, Cumbria
  • Coniston Brown Howe, Coniston Water, Cumbria
  • Derwent Water at Crow Park, Cumbria
  • Goring Beach, West Sussex
  • Littlehaven Beach, Tyne and Wear
  • Manningtree Beach, Essex
  • Monk Coniston, Coniston Water, Cumbria
  • River Avon at Fordingbridge, Hampshire
  • River Cam at Sheep’s Green, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
  • River Dart Estuary at Dittisham, Devon
  • River Dart Estuary at Steamer Quay, Totnes, Devon
  • River Dart Estuary at Stoke Gabriel, Devon
  • River Dart Estuary at Warfleet, Devon
  • River Frome at Farleigh Hungerford, Somerset
  • River Nidd at Knaresborough, North Yorkshire
  • River Ribble at Edisford Bridge, Lancashire
  • River Severn at Ironbridge, Shropshire
  • River Severn at Shrewsbury, Shropshire
  • River Stour at Friars Meadow, Sudbury, Suffolk
  • River Teme at Ludlow, Shropshire
  • River Tone at French Weir Park, Somerset
  • River Wharfe at Wetherby, West Yorkshire
  • Rottingdean Beach, East Sussex
  • Wallingford Beach, River Thames, Oxfordshire
  • Worthing Beach House, West Sussex

The consultation asked respondents to confirm whether they agreed, disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate each site as a bathing water, and invited them to provide reasons for their view if they wished to. The consultation also asked respondents to provide information about any facilities or infrastructure which promote bathing at the site they were providing their view on.

Respondents only had to respond about one site to have their response counted, but were able to comment on more than one, or all, of the sites if they wished to.

This was a national consultation, following local consultations that were held by the applicants as part of the evidence gathering process for their applications. This document summarises the responses to the national consultation.

Summary of responses

Defra received 10,962 responses to the consultation, with some respondents giving their views on more than one site. Many responses related to the site(s) with which the respondents were familiar, while some respondents gave a generic response to the designation of many or all sites. Most respondents gave more than one reason for why they agreed, disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with a proposed designation.

Organisations that responded were mainly national or local swimming and other water sports organisations, national or local environmental non-governmental organisations and societies, industry and sector organisations, and water companies. A list of organisations from whom Defra received a response is included in Annex A.

Some national organisations made general comments about bathing water designation in their responses or made comments that applied to all or several of the sites. These responses are summarised below and are included in the figures provided for each site.

British Canoeing supported the designation of the 27 sites as bathing waters. They highlighted the health and wellbeing benefits of access to blue spaces and the negative impact of pollution to the health of recreational water users and waterways. British Canoeing stated that the designations will require the Environment Agency to monitor the water quality for harmful bacteria which pose a risk to the health of recreational users and help protect the quality of the water. British Canoeing’s response also highlighted the benefits of water quality information signage present at bathing water sites.

Surfers Against Sewage supported the designation of all 27 sites as bathing waters. They pointed out that designated bathing waters are stretches of waterways where there is a statutory requirement to monitor water quality for bacteria harmful to human health. With this information water users are then able to assess the health risk of using a specific bathing water.

Swim England supported the designation of all 27 sites as bathing waters and highlighted the health and wellbeing benefits, both physical and mental, of swimming outdoors. Swim England said that by designating these 27 sites Defra can provide a catalyst for improving water quality as well as sending a message that blue spaces are there to be accessed and enjoyed.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) did not support any of the designations and said they would need a longer amount of time to consult their local members to determine the make-up of farming businesses within the upstream catchments of the proposed designations. They pointed out that consultation with farming businesses is important to understand the impact of bathing water designation, particularly where any required improvements to water quality identified following designation require engagement with local farmers.

The Outdoor Swimming Society (OSS) supported 21 of the proposals. They did not comment on the other six. They said designations would benefit swimmers and other water users, giving them information on bathing water quality so that users can make a decision on whether to enter the water and, if so, what precautions to take. Their view was that the impact of these designations will be that bathing water quality will be checked and publicised, which should lead to improvements and give swimmers information.

The Rivers Trust supported the designation of all 27 sites as bathing waters. They said that getting out into the water is a valuable form of physical exercise, puts people in touch with green and blue spaces, which boosts mental health, and can be a social activity. They also pointed out that bathing water designations are important for enabling more people to gain positive experiences of the natural environment and to support nature connectedness.

Northumbrian Water supported the designation of Littlehaven Beach and confirmed it had offered support to South Tyneside Council on this proposed bathing water. Northumbrian Water’s response highlighted the challenges of undertaking investigations to understand the sources of bacteria impacting bathing water quality at a newly designated site, as well as putting in place the required investment to improve quality to meet at least a ‘Sufficient’ classification.

Severn Trent supported the applications for the River Severn at Ironbridge, the River Severn at Shrewsbury and the River Teme at Ludlow to be designated bathing waters. All 3 are within the region served by Severn Trent. Severn Trent’s response highlighted its commitment to play its part in improving water quality and the need for a range of stakeholders to be involved to make improvements.

South West Water’s response said it was broadly neutral regarding the designation and de-designation of bathing waters and recognised the economic benefits of each designated bathing water in the company’s region. The company provided a response for each of the 6 proposed designations in the area it serves (Church Cliff Beach, Coastguards Beach, and the River Dart Estuary at Dittisham, Steam Quay, Stoke Gabriel and Warfleet, Dartmouth). It confirmed it will respond to any designations by making necessary investments to improve the bathing water quality. The company’s response also confirmed it has been engaging with the Friends of the Dart around the development of inland bathing locations and was pleased to see this result in the four bathing water applications for this area this year.

Wessex Water broadly supported the applications for the River Avon at Fordingbridge, the River Frome at Farleigh Hungerford and the River Tone in French Weir Park, which are all within the region served by Wessex Water. Wessex Water’s response confirmed it has already been working with stakeholders at each site to improve public understanding of water quality.

Yorkshire Water supported the applications to designate the River Nidd at Knaresborough and the River Wharfe at Wetherby. In the company’s view, achieving bathing water standards for rivers requires significant resource and time and believe a partnership approach is required to improve bathing water quality and protect public health. 

Table 1 shows the breakdown of the number of responses that agreed with, disagreed with, or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate each of the sites.

Table 1: Responses for each site

Proposed bathing water Total number of responses Agreed with the proposal to designate Disagreed with the proposal to designate Neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate
Church Cliff Beach 531 527 3 1
Coastguards Beach, River Erme 1,096 1091 4 1
Coniston Boating Centre 180 175 2 3
Coniston Brown Howe 213 207 4 2
Derwent Water at Crow Park 557 543 10 4
Farleigh and District Swimming Club 447 442 2 3
Goring Beach 178 175 2 1
Littlehaven Beach 51 48 2 1
Manningtree Beach 1,290 1,285 5 0
Monk Coniston 117 110 4 3
River Avon at Fordingbridge 342 335 5 2
River Cam at Sheep’s Green 496 455 39 2
River Dart at Dittisham 214 212 1 1
River Dart at Steamer Quay, Totnes 329 323 5 1
River Dart at Stoke Gabriel 199 196 2 1
River Dart at Warfleet, Dartmouth 231 225 5 1
River Nidd at Knaresborough 563 559 3 1
River Severn at Ironbridge 156 150 4 2
River Severn in Shrewsbury 248 241 5 2
River Stour at Sudbury 326 323 3 0
River Teme in Ludlow 206 202 4 0
River Tone at French Weir Park 261 252 7 2
River Wharfe at Wetherby 121 119 1 1
River Ribble at Edisford Bridge 566 559 4 3
Rottingdean Beach 556 552 1 3
Wallingford Beach, River Thames 1,239 1,213 18 8
Worthing Beach House 245 241 2 2

The summaries below provide an overview of the responses Defra received for each of the 27 proposed sites.

Church Cliff Beach, Dorset

Of the 531 responses received, 527 agreed with the proposal to designate Church Cliff Beach as a bathing water, 3 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reason given by those in support of designating this site was that respondents believe it would improve the water quality at the site (453 respondents). 407 respondents stated that the public should have easy access to a bathing water, 405 respondents cited benefits to the local community, and 401 cited benefits to mental and physical health that a designation would bring as reasons for agreeing with the proposal. Many respondents also mentioned the high level of demand for a bathing water site at this location (322 respondents). 313 respondents cited that a designation would help protect nature and wildlife. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned safety and pollution concerns at the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site stated that while a designation would be welcome, they would like to see health and safety improvements at the site.

The reasons cited by the 3 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt designation could give bathers the impression that the site is physically safe, that designation would not bring benefits to the local community, and that the water quality would not be improved.

Coastguards Beach, River Erme, Devon

Of the 1,096 responses received, 1,091 agreed with the proposal to designate Coastguards Beach as a bathing water, 4 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reason given by those in support of designating this site was that bathing water designation would improve the water quality at the site (930 respondents). 889 respondents also cited that the public should have easy access to a bathing water, 814 respondents cited that there would be benefits for the local community, 841 cited that there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public and 824 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. 617 respondents cited local demand for a new bathing water as a reason for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned driving improvements from the relevant water company, current high usage of the site for bathing, protecting the area for the future and a need for better information to make an informed decision whether to swim at the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site stated that they are not informed about the current water quality at the site.

The reasons cited by the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt the area should be kept as a quiet, rural place, that there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water and that designation would not help protect nature and wildlife.

Coniston Boating Centre, Coniston Water, Cumbria

Of the 180 responses received, 175 agreed with the proposal to designate Coniston Boating Centre as a bathing water, 2 disagreed with the proposal and 3 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The reasons given by those in support of designating this site as a bathing water were improvements to the water quality (133 respondents), benefits to the local community (106 respondents), the fact that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (116 respondents), the physical and mental health benefits that bathing water designation could bring (115 respondents), local demand for a new bathing water (109 respondents). And cited protecting nature and wildlife (118 respondents). Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned public education about water quality, improving the safety of using the water and the natural beauty of the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal. 10 respondents cited local school children having outdoor swimming lessons at the site as a reason for supporting the proposal.

Of the 3 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised regarding safety, overcrowding, protecting the environment at the site and the water quality of the site.

The reasons cited by the 2 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included safety, water quality and overcrowding concerns.

Coniston Brown Howe, Coniston Water, Cumbria

Of the 213 responses received, 207 agreed with the proposal to designate Coniston Brown Howe as a bathing water, 4 disagreed with the proposal and 2 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site as a bathing water were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (147 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (139 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (158 respondents). 115 respondents mentioned that there would be benefits for the local community, 132 cited local demand for a new bathing water and 149 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned public education about the water, improving the safety of using the water and the natural beauty of the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal. 1 respondent mentioned the cultural and historical significance of the site. 10 respondents cited local school children having outdoor swimming lessons at the site as a reason for supporting the proposal.

Of the 2 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised about overcrowding, damage to the environment, littering, noise pollution and safety. 1 respondent stated that a bathing water designation was not necessary at the site.

The reasons cited by the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that designation would not help protect nature and wildlife, and that the water quality would not be improved.

Derwent Water at Crow Park, Cumbria

Of the 557 responses received, 543 agreed with the proposal to designate Derwent Water at Crow Park as a bathing water, 10 disagreed with the proposal and 4 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (430 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (420 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (430 respondents). 380 respondents stated that there would be benefits for the local community, 378 cited protecting nature and wildlife and 282 cited local demand for a new bathing water as reasons for supporting the proposal.

Of the 4 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised over a lack of information on the current quality of the water, health risks of using the site and other water users potentially causing safety issues for swimmers.

The reasons cited by the 10 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that designation would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, that a poor water quality classification for the site would prevent commercial swimming events taking place, overcrowding and that the site is unappealing.

Goring Beach, West Sussex

Of the 178 responses received, 175 agreed with the proposal to designate Goring Beach as a bathing water, 2 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were physical and mental health benefits for the public (146 respondents), that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (138 respondents), benefits to the local community (134 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (138 respondents). 115 respondents cited local demand for a new bathing water and 110 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned the water testing/monitoring requirement of a designated bathing water as a reason they were in favour of the proposal.

The reasons cited by the 2 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt the water quality would not be improved and sewage concerns.

Littlehaven Beach, Tyne and Wear

Of the 51 responses received, 48 agreed with the proposal to designate Littlehaven Beach as a bathing water, 2 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (37 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (37 respondents). 31 respondents cited benefits for the local community, 32 cited physical and mental health benefits for the public, 30 mentioned it would help protect nature and wildlife and 26 cited local demand for a new bathing water as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned improving the safety of using the water as a reason they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site stated that they would prefer a site closer to their location being designated.

The reasons cited by the 2 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved and concerns about a nearby sewage treatment works.

Manningtree Beach, Essex

Of the 1,290 responses received, 1,285 agreed with the proposal to designate Manningtree Beach as a bathing water and 5 disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (1,085 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (1,073 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (1,074 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (1,015 respondents). 873 respondents cited the local demand for a new bathing water and 841 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned that the water should be safe, sewage levels, and increased usage that would result in less overcrowding at other smaller local sites as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The reasons cited by the 5 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, that monitoring at designated sites should be all year round rather than only during the bathing season and that they would not swim at the site due to pollution.

Monk Coniston, Coniston Water, Cumbria

Of the 117 responses received, 110 agreed with the proposal to designate Monk Coniston as a bathing water, 4 disagreed with the proposal and 3 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that it would help protect nature and wildlife (83 respondents), that there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (65 respondents), that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (68 respondents) and improvements to the water quality at the site that a bathing water designation could bring (88 respondents). 57 respondents cited benefits for the local community and 70 cited local demand for a new bathing water as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned the site being a good area for swimming, water company performance improvements, improving the safety of using the water and the natural beauty of the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal. 10 respondents cited local school children having outdoor swimming lessons at the site as a reason for supporting the proposal.

Of the 3 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised about overcrowding, insufficient facilities and the current water quality of the site.

The reasons cited by the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, limited facilities, potential antisocial behaviour and that the water is already safe to swim in at the site.

River Avon at Fordingbridge, Hampshire

Of the 342 responses received, 335 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Avon at Fordingbridge as a bathing water, 5 disagreed with the proposal and 2 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (269 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (268 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (262 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (268 respondents). 235 respondents cited protecting nature and wildlife and 206 cited the local demand for a new bathing water as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned the use of the site by families, the perception that the site can cause illness after being used for bathing and the heritage of the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

Of the 2 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, a concern was raised over high costs that would be required in order to improve the water quality of the site. Another respondent stated that they were not a swimmer.

The reasons cited by the 5 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, overcrowding at the site and the danger of swimming with strong undercurrents.

River Cam at Sheep’s Green, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

Of the 496 responses received, 455 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Cam at Sheep’s Green as a bathing water, 39 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reason given by those in support of designating this site was that the water quality would be improved (412 respondents). 380 respondents mentioned that the public should have easy access to a bathing water, 369 respondents cited physical and mental health benefits for the public and 346 mentioned that there would be benefits for the local community as reasons for supporting the proposal. 281 respondents cited the local demand for a new bathing water and 279 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned a need to reduce pollution in waters, education about the water and water quality monitoring as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site stated that all watercourses should be at bathing water standard and that water companies should be nationalised.

This site received the highest number of responses that were against designation this year. The reasons cited by the 39 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife and could cause negative wildlife or habitat impacts, that the water quality would not be improved, that the whole river should be cleaner rather than just localised bathing areas, that bathing water monitoring does not test for many potential pollutants, insufficient facilities, current low usage at the site, potential overcrowding, other water users such as boats potentially causing safety issues for swimmers and that it would encourage overdevelopment at the site.

River Dart Estuary at Dittisham, Devon

Of the 214 responses received, 212 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Dart at Dittisham as a bathing water, 1 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (173 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (174 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (171 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (175 respondents). 138 respondents cited the local demand for a new bathing water and 158 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned that it could ease pressure on other sites, the perception that the site can cause illness after being used for bathing and to improve water company performance as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site did not give a reason.

River Dart Estuary at Steamer Quay, Totnes, Devon

Of the 329 responses received, 323 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Dart at Steamer Quay, Totnes as a bathing water, 5 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (280 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (274 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (263 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (280 respondents). 232 respondents cited the local demand for a new bathing water and 245 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned the perception that the site can cause illness after being used for bathing, that it will help people connect with nature, to improve water company performance and to educate people about water quality as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site stated that there needs to be a full disclosure of sewage discharges.

The reasons cited by the 5 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, other water users such as boats potentially causing safety issues for swimmers, waterfowl that use the site and deep mud in places.

River Dart Estuary at Stoke Gabriel, Devon

Of the 199 responses received, 196 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Dart at Stoke Gabriel as a bathing water, 2 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (158 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (167 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (161 respondents) and that there would be improvements to the water quality at the site (165 respondents). 141 respondents cited the local demand for a new bathing water and 152 cited protecting nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned that they feel the site is currently being polluted (from both agriculture and water companies) and the fact that people already swim at the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site was concerned over health and safety issues around using the site.

The reasons cited by the 2 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, current levels of sewage in the river and their view that the site is unsafe for swimming.

River Dart Estuary at Warfleet, Devon

Of the 231 responses received, 225 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Dart at Warfleet, Dartmouth as a bathing water, 5 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reason given by those in support of designating this site were the physical and mental health benefits for the public (175 respondents), there would be benefits for the local community (172 respondents), that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (179 respondents) and improvements to the water quality at the site which bathing water designation could bring (182 respondents). 149 respondents cited local demand for a new bathing water and 155 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned the sites’ current high usage for bathing and making the site safer as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

The reasons cited by the 5 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were insufficient facilities, litter and that boats use the same area.

River Frome at Farleigh Hungerford, Somerset

Of the 447 responses received, 442 agreed with the proposal to designate an area River Frome at Farleigh Hungerford (Farleigh and District Swimming Club) as a bathing water, 2 disagreed with the proposal and 3 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (367 respondents) and the physical and mental health benefits designation would bring (352 respondents). 329 respondents cited improvements to water quality, 287 cited protecting nature and wildlife, 232 cited local demand for a new bathing water and 308 cited benefits for the local community as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned the current high usage of the site for swimming and the historical importance of the site as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

Of the 3 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised about agricultural issues that affect the site and sewage in the river.

The reasons cited by the 2 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt designation would not protect nature and wildlife and that the water quality would not be improved.

River Nidd at Knaresborough, North Yorkshire

Of the 563 responses received, 559 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Nidd at Knaresborough as a bathing water, 3 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reason given by those in support of designating this site was improvements to the water quality at the site that a bathing water designation could bring (475 responses). 457 respondents mentioned that the public should have easy access to a bathing water, 460 cited benefits for the local community and 461 cited physical and mental health benefits for the public. 367 respondents cited local demand for a new bathing water and 391 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site was concerned about a lack of parking availability for the site.

The reasons cited by the 3 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt it would not help protect nature and wildlife and that the water quality would not be improved.

River Ribble at Edisford Bridge, Lancashire

Of the 566 responses received, 559 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Ribble at Edisford Bridge as a bathing water, 4 disagreed with the proposal and 3 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (454 respondents) and there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (466 respondents). 430 respondents mentioned that there would be benefits for the local community, 431 cited that the water quality would be improved, 341 cited local demand for a new bathing water and 340 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal.

Of the 3 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised about the water quality at the site, although public demand for the designation was also recognised.

The reasons cited by the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt the water quality would not be improved and that designating the site would be a risk to public health.

River Severn at Ironbridge, Shropshire

Of the 156 responses received, 150 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Severn at Ironbridge as a bathing water, 4 disagreed with the proposal and 2 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reason given by those in support of designating this site was physical and mental health benefits for the public that bathing water designation could bring (131 respondents). 123 respondents mentioned that the public should have easy access to a bathing water, 119 cited improvements to the water quality at the site, 113 cited benefits for the local community, 111 cited local demand for a new bathing water and 104 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned that the area the site is in is a world heritage site and that designation would encourage more swimming as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

Of the 2 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised about the current quality water quality of the river.

The reasons cited by the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt the water quality would not be improved, that there would not be benefits to the local community, that the site is not safe for bathing, there are high pollution levels at the site and there not being enough local demand for the site to be designated.

River Severn at Shrewsbury, Shropshire

Of the 248 responses received, 241 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Severn in Shrewsbury as a bathing water, 5 disagreed with the proposal and 2 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (199 respondents), that there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (197 respondents) and that the water quality would be improved (195 respondents). 178 respondents cited benefits for the local community, 174 cited local demand for a new bathing water and 165 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal.

Of the 2 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised over the impact on nature and wildlife and the water quality of the site.

The reasons cited by the 5 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt the water quality would not be improved and that it is not currently safe to swim at the site.

River Stour at Friars Meadow, Sudbury, Suffolk

Of the 326 responses received, 323 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Stour at Sudbury as a bathing water and 3 disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (269 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (267 respondents), there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (269 respondents) and the water quality would be improved (255 respondents). 213 respondents cited local demand for a new bathing water and 205 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned that swimming at the site is a low cost and low carbon leisure activity as a reason they were in favour of the proposal.

The reasons cited by the 3 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt the site is too busy and there is overcrowding.

River Teme at Ludlow, Shropshire

Of the 206 responses received, 202 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Teme at Ludlow as a bathing water and 4 disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (170 respondents) and there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (166 respondents). 154 respondents cited benefits for the local community, 124 cited that designation would help protect nature and wildlife, 136 cited that there is local demand for a new bathing water and 148 cited that the water quality would be improved as reasons for supporting the proposal.

The reasons cited by the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife and that it could cause challenges for local farmers.

River Tone at French Weir Park, Somerset

Of the 261 responses received, 252 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Tone at French Weir Park as a bathing water, 7 disagreed with the proposal and 2 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were there would be benefits for the local community (204 respondents), that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (212 respondents) and that there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (206 respondents). 141 respondents mentioned that it would help protect nature and wildlife, 163 mentioned that there is local demand for a new bathing water and 170 mentioned that the water quality would be improved as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned improving safety at the site, that the site is a good place to cool down, the community feel to the site and the effects of climate change as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

Of the 2 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised over the actions of the water company for the area and the safety of using the site for bathing.

The reasons cited by the 7 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt there would not be benefits for the local community, that there is not local demand for a new bathing water, that it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, noise pollution and that the site is unclean.

River Wharfe at Wetherby, West Yorkshire

Of the 121 responses received, 119 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of the River Wharfe at Wetherby as a bathing water, 1 disagreed with the proposal and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (95 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (86 respondents), that the water quality would be improved (92 respondents) and there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (91 respondents). 71 respondents cited there being local demand for a new bathing water and 76 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned improving public education about the quality of the water as a reason they were in favour of the proposal.

The respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site stated they did not want to be controversial.

Rottingdean Beach, East Sussex

Of the 556 responses received, 552 agreed with the proposal to designate Rottingdean Beach as a bathing water, 1 disagreed with the proposal and 3 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reason given by those in support of designating this site was that the water quality would be improved (469 respondents). 449 respondents mentioned that the public should have easy access to a bathing water, 423 cited there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public, 423 cited there would be benefits for the local community, 339 cited that it would help protect nature and wildlife and 301 cited the local demand for a new bathing water as reasons for supporting the proposal.

Among the respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised about ensuring dogs are allowed on the beach and the potential effects of the designation on the local farming community.

Wallingford Beach, River Thames, Oxfordshire

Of the 1,239 responses received, 1,213 agreed with the proposal to designate an area of Wallingford Beach as a bathing water, 18 disagreed with the proposal and 8 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (1,030 respondents), that there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (1,011 respondents) and the water quality would be improved (1,021 respondents). 991 respondents mentioned that there would be benefits for the local community, 809 cited the local demand for a new bathing water and 721 mentioned that it would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned the high number of people, especially families, that use the site, the water quality data being published and putting pressure on the water company to reduce sewage discharges as reasons they were in favour of the proposal. 1 respondent mentioned climate change as a reason for supporting the proposal.

Of the 8 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, concerns were raised over the safety of using the site, the potential impact of a designation on the agricultural sector, their preference for a whole river to be monitored rather than one bathing area and a loss of faith in the water company for the area.

The most cited reasons by the 18 respondents who disagreed with the proposal were that they felt it would not help protect nature and wildlife, that the water quality would not be improved, and their view that the site is not currently safe to use for swimming. Other respondents mentioned overcrowding and insufficient facilities as reasons they disagreed with the proposal.

Worthing Beach House, West Sussex

Of the 245 responses received, 241 agreed with the proposal to designate Worthing Beach House as a bathing water, 2 disagreed with the proposal and 2 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were that the public should have easy access to a bathing water (203 respondents), that there would be benefits for the local community (194 respondents), that there would be physical and mental health benefits for the public (199 respondents) and that the water quality would be improved (199 respondents). 173 respondents cited local demand for a new bathing water and 160 cited that a designation would help protect nature and wildlife as reasons for supporting the proposal. Smaller numbers of respondents mentioned sewage and the actions of the water company for the area as reasons they were in favour of the proposal.

Of the 2 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, a concern was raised over the impacts of a designation on other activities such as dog walking and water sports and an opinion was given that all public waters should be open to bathing.

The reasons cited by the 2 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included that there is not local demand for a new bathing water.

Government response

Defra would like to thank all those who responded to this consultation. Defra recognises that it is important for all relevant stakeholders to have the opportunity to be consulted before a site is designated as a bathing water and has noted a number of points that have been raised in some responses to this consultation, for example, in relation to the operation of the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, the current application and consultation process, and the improvement of, and investment in, bathing waters once designated. Defra welcomes this feedback and will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders on these issues.

Defra has engaged with Natural England (NE) to ensure that any bathing water designation is compatible with any statutory provisions in place at a given site to protect wildlife, habitats and features of interest. Specifically, we have worked with NE to better understand potential habitat deterioration risks that could be generated by bathing water designation at particular sites and how these could be addressed. For the sites in question (Derwent Water at Crow Park, Manningtree Beach and the River Avon at Fordingbridge), we have written to the responsible local authority (LAs) to encourage them to include information about the protected features at the bathing site, and the need to bathe responsibly given the sensitivity of the site and other nearby areas, as part of bathing water signage they will be required to install.

Defra has also noted that a number of responses were submitted to raise concerns about the proposed bathing water designation on the River Cam at Sheep’s Green, in Cambridge, due to potential negative impacts on local wildlife and ecology. We carefully considered all responses for this site and considered potential impacts. On balance, the evidence in favour of designation outweighed the evidence against and the site will therefore be designated as a bathing water. We will be encouraging the local authority at this and other newly designated bathing waters to install appropriate public information signage to highlight the wider environmental value of the site and nearby areas, including for wildlife, and to encourage bathers to enjoy the site responsibly.

We also recognise that some respondents mentioned safety in bathing waters in their responses to this consultation. The Bathing Water Regulations 2013, which set out the legal duties of the EA, Defra and local authorities, focus specifically on water quality. The management of the physical risks in bathing waters is not regulated under this regime.

The objective of the Regulations is to protect bathers’ health by driving improvement to water quality in water body areas where a large number of people are expected to bathe. They do this by requiring water quality at bathing waters to be monitored for intestinal enterococci and E. coli, which are indicator organisms showing whether pollution from sewage, livestock or urban sources such as misconnected drains is present in the water. The Regulations also include provisions for managing any proliferation of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) by requiring local councils to inform the public about the health risk.

This monitoring allows designated bathing waters to be classified annually as excellent, good, sufficient or poor, with the EA taking over 7,000 samples each year. The EA also investigates sources of pollution at bathing waters, for example, from agriculture, the water industry and other sources, to identify remedial measures that can be put in place to improve the water quality. Action plans are developed for all bathing waters classified as poor.

Throughout the bathing season, the EA makes daily pollution risk forecasts for a number of bathing waters where water quality may be temporarily reduced due to factors such as heavy rainfall, wind or the tide. When a temporary reduction in water quality is forecast, the EA issues a pollution risk warning and advice against bathing, enabling bathers to avoid times or locations where the risk of pollution is higher than normal and health risks from bathing may be higher than the annual classification suggests.

Bathing water quality information for all designated bathing waters in England can be accessed on the EA’s Swimfo website, as well as on physical signage displayed at sites.  

In 2023, 90% of bathing waters met the highest standards of good or excellent, up from just 76% in 2010 and despite stricter classification standards being introduced in 2015. Government is committed to improving the quality of our bathing waters so we are taking action to drive up standards and hold polluters to account. We have set stringent targets for water companies to reduce the use of storm overflows through the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan – driving the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, £60 billion over 25 years. This includes frontloading action in particularly important and sensitive sites, including bathing waters: by 2035, water companies will have improved all storm overflows discharging near every designated bathing water. 

The government has also introduced a step change in investment by water companies which is expected between 2025 and 2030 through the next Water Industry Natural Environment Programme (WINEP).

This will include significant new investments to improve water quality at bathing waters, ramping up the investment from the last price control to improve hundreds of storm overflows across the country, and investment to install thousands of new state of the art water quality monitors across the country.  

Decision and next steps

Following this consultation, 27 sites will be added to the list of designated bathing waters in England and monitored by the EA with effect from the 2024 bathing season.

These sites are:

  • Church Cliff Beach, Dorset
  • Coastguards Beach, River Erme, Devon
  • Coniston Boating Centre, Coniston Water, Cumbria
  • Coniston Brown Howe, Coniston Water, Cumbria
  • Derwent Water at Crow Park, Cumbria
  • Goring Beach, West Sussex
  • Littlehaven Beach, Tyne and Wear
  • Manningtree Beach, Essex
  • Monk Coniston, Coniston Water, Cumbria
  • River Avon at Fordingbridge, Hampshire
  • River Cam at Sheep’s Green, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
  • River Dart Estuary at Dittisham, Devon
  • River Dart Estuary at Steamer Quay, Totnes, Devon
  • River Dart Estuary at Stoke Gabriel, Devon
  • River Dart Estuary at Warfleet, Devon
  • River Frome at Farleigh Hungerford, Somerset
  • River Nidd at Knaresborough, North Yorkshire
  • River Ribble at Edisford Bridge, Lancashire
  • River Severn at Ironbridge, Shropshire
  • River Severn at Shrewsbury, Shropshire
  • River Stour at Friars Meadow, Sudbury, Suffolk
  • River Teme at Ludlow, Shropshire
  • River Tone at French Weir Park, Somerset
  • River Wharfe at Wetherby, West Yorkshire
  • Rottingdean Beach, East Sussex
  • Wallingford Beach, River Thames, Oxfordshire
  • Worthing Beach House, West Sussex

The Environment Agency will prepare bathing water profiles and identify a sampling point for each site, based on where the largest number of bathers go into the water. Monitoring will commence in May 2024.

During the bathing season, the relevant local authority will be responsible for providing public information about water quality and potential pollution sources at the bathing water and for taking management measures, usually in the form of providing warning signage, as advised by the EA, during pollution incidents. Defra will provide funding towards the cost of information signage. Bathing water designation will not affect or alter any protections already in place at the sites under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

The relevant local authorities for the 27 sites are:

  • Church Cliff Beach - Dorset Council

  • Coastguards Beach, River Erme - South Hams District Council

  • Coniston Boating Centre, Coniston Water - Westmorland and Furness Council

  • Coniston Brown Howe, Coniston Water - Westmorland and Furness Council

  • Derwent Water at Crow Park, Cumbria- Cumberland County Council

  • Goring Beach, West Sussex - Worthing Borough Council

  • Littlehaven Beach, Tyne and Wear - South Tyneside Council

  • Manningtree Beach, Essex - Manningtree Town Council

  • Monk Coniston, Coniston Water - Westmorland and Furness Council

  • River Avon at Fordingbridge, Hampshire - New Forest District Council

  • River Cam at Sheep’s Green, Cambridgeshire - Cambridge City Council

  • River Dart Estuary at Dittisham, Devon - South Hams District Council

  • River Dart Estuary at Steamer Quay, Totnes, Devon - South Hams District Council

  • River Dart Estuary at Stoke Gabriel, Devon - South Hams District Council

  • River Dart Estuary at Warfleet, Devon - South Hams District Council

  • River Frome at Farleigh Hungerford, Somerset - Somerset Council

  • River Nidd at Knaresborough, North Yorkshire - North Yorkshire Council

  • River Ribble at Edisford Bridge, Lancashire - Ribble Valley Borough Council

  • River Severn at Ironbridge, Shropshire - Telford & Wrekin Council

  • River Severn at Shrewsbury, Shropshire - Shrewsbury Town Council

  • River Stour at Friars Meadow, Sudbury, Suffolk - Sudbury Town Council

  • River Teme at Ludlow, Shropshire - Ludlow Town Council

  • River Tone at French Weir Park, Somerset - Somerset Council

  • River Wharfe at Wetherby, West Yorkshire - Leeds City Council

  • Rottingdean Beach, East Sussex- Brighton and Hove City Council

  • Wallingford Beach, River Thames, Oxfordshire - South Oxfordshire District Council

  • Worthing Beach House, West Sussex - Worthing Borough Council

Defra reviews the list of designated bathing waters annually by writing to the Chief Executive of every local council in England and to other organisations, including tourism bodies and swimming organisations. We encourage applications from local councils, private operators and other organisations for beaches and inland bathing areas that meet the criteria set out in the application guidance on bathing water designation. The focus is specifically on usage for bathing because the microbial standards set by the Regulations are designed to assess the water quality over a limited area that can be covered by swimmers and are less suitable to provide information on water quality over the distance covered by a kayak or other watercraft.

Annex A - List of responding organisations

This list of responding organisations is not exhaustive. Rather, it is based on those that declared their organisation when responding to the consultation. This may include responses from individuals who are members of, or affiliated to, an organisation and who gave that organisation’s name when responding to the consultation.

This list also does not include organisations which asked for their response to be kept confidential or those that did not include the name of the organisation.

1st Downton Scouts

3rd Sudbury Scouts

3rd Sudbury Sea Scouts

8th Worthing Sea Scouts

AJS FlyFishers

Avon Valley Farmer Cluster

Axe Vale and District Conservation Society

Babergh & Mid Suffolk Councils

Batten Belles and Buoys

Bigbury Nippy Dippers

Bilton Conservation Group

Bioabundance Community Interest Company

Boston Spa Parish Council

Boston Spa, Wetherby & Villages Community Green Group

Bournemouth Spartans Swimming Club

Bowland Pennine Mountain Rescue Team

Brazier Park college

British Canoeing

Brixton Parish Council

Brooklands Primary School

Cam Valley Forum

Cambridge Canoe Club

Cambridge Carbon Neutral

Cambridge Friends of the Earth

Cambridge University

Cambridge University Canoe Club

Carlshead Farms

Centre for Outdoor Activity and Community Hub (COACH)

Chill South Devon CIC

Cholsey Meadows Management Company

Clifton and Hampden Sea Scouts

Climate Action Taunton

Colchester Canoe Club

Coniston Parish Council

Copeland Canoe Club

Cumbria Regional Development Team (Cumbria Canoeists)

Dales Canoe Club

Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority

Devon Environment Foundation

Dinham Weir House

DK Sanders Electrical Services

East Anglian Sea School

Eden’s Project

Erme to Yealm Coastal Cluster Farmer Group

Ermington Environmental

Ermington Parish Council

Estuary Wine Bar

Farleigh and District Swimming  Club

Flete Field Lab

For the Love of Water (Flow) CIC

Fordingbridge Area Wild Swimmers

Fordingbridge Rugby Club

Fordy Fishes

Friends of Paradise Nature Reserve

Friends of Rottingdean Beach

Friends of Sheep’s Green and Lammas Land

Friends of the Cam

Friends of the Dart

Frome Families for the Future

Goring Gulls

Goring Thames Sailing Club

‘Go With The Flow’ Swimming Adventures

Hampshire Open Water Swimmers

Harewood Estate

Harrogate MS Society

Harwich Area Sailing Association (HASA)

Henley Open Water Swimming Club

Highlands Health Centre

Holbeton Parish Council

Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Steering Group

Ivybridge Chamber of Commerce

Jurasic Area Wild Swimmers

Keswick Angling Association

Keswick Canoe and Bushcraft

Kirk Hammerton Parish Council

Lake Bank Boat Club

Lancashire Positive Minds

Lancashire Wild Swim

Lawford Parish Council

LMB Coaching

Ludlow Town Council

Lyme Regis Bluetits

Lyme Regis Gig Club

Lyme Regis Sailing Club

Lyme Regis Town Council

Lyme Splash

Manningtree Bluetits

Manningtree District Business Chamber

Manningtree High School

Manningtree Mermaids

Manningtree Town Council

Manningtree Wild Swimmers

Martello Bluetits

Maxines Minding

Mental Health Swims Ilkley

Mistley Parish Council

Modbury Parish Council

Modbury Wildlife Action Group

Molesworth & Bird Ltd

New Ludlow Women’s Institute

Newnham Riverbank Club

NFU

North Yorkshire Council

Northumbrian Water

NOWCA Ltd

Open Canoe Sailing Group

Orchard Farm Devon Limited

Outdoor Swimmer Magazine

Oxford Brookes University Boat Club

PACE Manningtree (Practical Actions for Climate and the Environment)

Pennywell Farm

Raleigh Estate

Rame Peninsula Beach Care

Reactive Watersports

Ribble Fisheries Consultative Association

River Lim Action Group

River Stour Trust

River Yealm Estuary to Moor Project

Riverside Working Group, Wallingford

RLSS Somerset Branch

Rose Builders Ltd

Rushbanks Campsite

Safe Water in Manningtree (SWIM)

SCOUTS SPLAT (Sudbury Paddlesports Leadership Activity Team)

Severn Trent Water

Sheep’s Green Learner Pool

Shrewsbury Masters

Shropshire Bluetits

Shropshire Wildlife Trust

Skelwith Parish Council

Somerset Activity and Sports Partnership

South Cumbria Rivers Trust

South Devon National Landscape

South Lakeland Locality Board

South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum

South Staffs Water

South Stoke Wildlife and Conservation Group

South Street Pubs Ltd - The Red Lion

Southwest Hearing

Specialist Door Design Solutions

Stoke Gabriel Boating Association

Stour Sailing Club

Sudbury Canoe Club

Sudbury Rowing Club

Sudbury Scouts

Suffolk West Federation Women’s Institute

SUP Yorkshire Paddlesports Community

Surfers Against Sewage

Sustainable Keswick

Swim and Cake Club - Cookham

Swim England

Taunton Rowing Club

Taunton Town Liberal Democrats

Telford and Wrekin Council

The Basin Bobbers

The Bioasis

The Bluetits

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

The Crown Pub

The Federation of Cambridge Residents’ Associations (FeCRA)

The Flete Estate

The Goodfellas Project

The Habitat Group

The Ice Faeries Open Water Swim Group

The Immersive Adventure Agency Ltd.

The Outdoor Swimming Society

The Rivers Trust

The Royal Life Saving Society UK

The Stour and Orwell Society

The SUP Life

The Wholefood Store

The Worthing Bluetits

TRISudbury

Trudi Ochiltree Art Classes

Turn Lyme Green

Ugborough Parish Coouncil

University of Plymouth

Up sewage creek

Wallingford Boys Brigade

Wallingford Town Council

Wallingford Triathlon Club

Warminster Adventure Sports Club

Wessex Rivers Trust

Wessex Water

West Cumbria Canoe Club

West Cumbria Rivers Trust

West of England Nature Partnership Nature and Health Strategy Group

Westcountry Rivers Trust

Wild about the Erme River

Wiltshire Wild Swimming

Winstone’s

Wombourne Kayak Club, Telford Canoe Club

WorFolk swimming group

Yealm Medical Centre

Yorkshire Dales Rivers Trust

Yorkshire Water

Back to top