Summary of responses and government response
Updated 24 March 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
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/draft-information-and-guidance-on-storm-overflows/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published a consultation on ‘Draft storm overflows information and guidance’. This was open for responses from 21 November 2024 to 24 January 2025.
The consultation was available to the public on GOV.UK and also sent directly to a number of key stakeholders. Defra received responses by email.
This publication includes:
- a summary of responses received, with analysis of responses and themes of note by question
- a government response and planned next steps
Background
This consultation related to draft information and guidance on storm overflows. The document was developed in collaboration with the regulators (Ofwat and the Environment Agency (EA)) and is for the water sector in England.
The draft information and guidance is non-statutory and covers the investigation, planning, and delivery of storm overflow improvements. In particular, it covers how storm overflow improvements are expected to meet both:
- the standards set out in government’s storm overflows discharge reduction plan (SODRP)
- existing legal requirements, including obligations under the Urban Wastewater Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 (UWWTR 1994)
The draft information and guidance does not introduce any new legal requirements on regulators or water companies. It is not intended to replace or amend existing legislative requirements.
Defra wants to ensure a clear planning framework, to support the significant forward investment needed from water companies, as well as a robust oversight and enforcement regime.
Technical, supplementary information will be provided in the EA’s updated storm overflows assessment framework (SOAF version 2).
Responses from this consultation informed changes to the new draft information and guidance. This draft document has been published on GOV.UK as Storm overflows: policy and guidance.
Summary of responses
Defra received 17 responses in total, all of which came through email. Of the respondents:
- 8 were water and sewerage companies
- 7 were environmental non-government organisations (eNGOs) and other non-profit interest groups
- 2 were engineering and environmental management organisations
Analysis of responses
Methodology
Questions were posed to respondents on specific sections within the draft document. Respondents were asked to assess if the:
- section is helpful
- section is clear
- section delivers the objectives of the document
- approaches outlined will be positive or negative
- section is workable
Respondents who disagreed or thought sections would have a negative impact were asked to explain their answer in an open text box.
Defra has quantified the multiple-choice responses received. We have also carried out a thematic analysis of the qualitative comments from respondents who used the open text box to provide further comments. A summary of analysis is included in the following section, with a full breakdown of analysis question by question.
Summary of analysis
Section 3.1: Legal requirements
Question 6. Do you agree that the ‘legal requirements’ section provides helpful information on storm overflows legal requirements?
| Response to question 6 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 0 | 0% |
| Agree | 7 | 44% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Disagree | 5 | 31% |
| Strongly disagree | 2 | 13% |
| I don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 2 | 13% |
Comments from respondents who disagreed and used the open text box included that there was an unclear interpretation of requirements under UWWTR 1994. This included requirements related to specific assets or permit conditions.
In response, Defra has clarified how companies can discuss questions with regulators and make sure assets and permits remain compliant with the UWWTR. We have also provided further details on implementing the two-stage test.
Section 3.2: Policy – storm overflows discharge reduction plan
Question 7. Do you agree that the ‘policy – storm overflows discharge reduction plan’ section delivers the objectives of this document (refer to section 1.1 ‘objectives’)?
| Response to question 7 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 0 | 0% |
| Agree | 7 | 41% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Disagree | 4 | 24% |
| Strongly disagree | 2 | 12% |
| I don’t know | 1 | 6% |
| Not answered | 2 | 12% |
| Neither agree nor disagree , Strongly disagree | 1 | 6% |
Comments from respondents who disagreed and used the open text box included that they:
- were uncertain about how investigations should be prioritised
- needed clarity in approaches to counting spills
- were concerned over length of period to assess average spill performance
In response, Defra has further clarified: that we recognise the 10-year assessment requires significant time to determine permit compliance. Therefore, the EA may use a shorter-term compliance assessment.
Question 8. Is the approach for coastal and estuarine waters adequately explained?
| Response to question 8 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 7 | 44% |
| No | 7 | 44% |
| I don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 2 | 13% |
Comments from respondents who answered ‘no’ and used the open text box included that:
- they need clearer timelines
- they need technical clarification
- the operating model was too complex
In response, the EA is currently looking at options for developing further technical guidance.
Question 9. Are the approaches in the ‘policy - storm overflows discharge reduction plan’ section likely to have an adverse impact on water companies’ ability to deliver their programme of storm overflow works?
| Response to question 9 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 6 | 35% |
| No | 4 | 24% |
| I don’t know | 4 | 24% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
Water companies who answered ‘no’ and used the open text box noted:
- difficulty implementing alongside regulatory requirements
- unrealistic timelines
- clarification needed on impacts on delivery
In response, Defra has noted concerns around the length of time to assess average spill performance and provided additional clarity. We recognise that a 10-year assessment requires significant time to determine permit compliance. Therefore, to secure early identification of underperforming storm overflows, the EA may use a shorter-term regulatory compliance assessment.
Question 10. Are the approaches outlined in the ‘policy – storm overflows discharge reduction plan’ section likely to have any positive or negative impacts (other than those described in Q9)? – Explain, providing evidence where possible.
| Response to question 10 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Positive impact | 7 | 41% |
| Negative impact | 4 | 24% |
| I don’t know | 2 | 12% |
| Not answered | 4 | 24% |
Comments from respondents who used the open text box included that:
- there was a lack of clarity
- enforcement models were too slow to implement and encourage grey infrastructure
- spill targets are too inflexible
Stakeholders commented on the clear presentation of this section.
Defra is confident that the ambitious and deliverable timelines set will encourage the adoption of green solutions. They are positive that spill performance assessed as an average over 10 years is flexible enough.
Section 4.1: Investigation triggers
Question 11. Overall, do you anticipate that the impacts of the approach outlined in the ‘investigation triggers’ section will be positive or negative?
| Response to question 11 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Positive | 6 | 35% |
| Negative | 5 | 29% |
| I don’t know | 2 | 12% |
| Not answered | 4 | 24% |
Water companies who used the open text box commented that:
- this section creates additional work not included in the 2024 price review (PR24)
- they wanted clearer links between the spill triggers flagged in the document and the drainage and wastewater management plan (DWMP) risk bands
In response, Defra has provided clarity around DWMP risk thresholds and what differentiates them from investigation triggers described in:
- the draft document
- Ofwat’s enforcement cases
- the EA’s SOAF version 2
Section 4.2: Investigation process
Question 12. Do you agree that section 4.2 explains the full context around the ‘investigation process’, in line with the objectives of the document (refer to section 1.1 ‘objectives’)?
| Response to question 12 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 0 | 0% |
| Agree | 6 | 35% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 24% |
| Disagree | 2 | 12% |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 6% |
| I don’t know | 1 | 6% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
Themes from respondents who disagreed and used the open text box included that they need more clarity on:
- how to prioritise investigations and related enforcement
- whether the findings need to be published
In response, Defra has signposted to Ofwat’s storm overflows uncertainty mechanism, which provides more clarity on prioritisation for PR24. The process on how to investigate was generally clear to respondents.
Question 13. Is the ‘investigation process’ section workable for water companies? If not, explain why, providing evidence where possible
| Response to question 13 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 5 | 31% |
| No | 3 | 19% |
| I don’t know | 4 | 25% |
| Not answered | 3 | 19% |
| Yes and No | 1 | 6% |
Water companies who answered ‘no’ and used the open text box commented on deliverability, with technical resources and reviewer capacity posing a challenge. eNGOs were sceptical that investigations will lead to improvements.
In response, Defra has:
- clarified that investigations should be reviewed by companies periodically
- signposted to section 3.1.5 for factors that may highlight the need to review a ‘best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost’ (BTKNEEC) test or an investigation
Section 4.3: Identifying improvements
Question 14. Do you agree that the approach to identifying improvements in section 4.3 delivers the objectives of the document (refer to section 1.1 ‘objectives’)?
| Response to question 14 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 0 | 0% |
| Agree | 6 | 35% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1 | 6% |
| Disagree | 5 | 29% |
| Strongly disagree | 0 | 0% |
| I don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
| Neither agree nor disagree, strongly disagree | 2 | 12% |
Themes from respondents who disagreed and used the open text box included that they need more clarity on green infrastructure and want Defra to adopt a stronger push for nature-based solutions. eNGOs commented that they were welcoming of the approaches outlined, but robust enforcement is needed for failure to assess or improve discharges.
In response, we have clarified that:
- the regulators will retain some flexibility when working with companies on timeframes for delivering green solutions
- companies can further discuss green solutions with the regulators as needed
We clarified that green solutions will be counted towards achieving SODRP targets if they are implemented before 2027 and delivered as quickly as possible.
Section 5: Delivering storm overflow improvements
Question 15. Is the ‘delivering storm overflow improvements’ section clear on the relationship between the drivers for improving storm overflows (for example, UWWTR 1994 and the SODRP)? – If not, explain why, providing evidence where possible.
| Response to question 15 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 6 | 38% |
| No | 6 | 38% |
| I don’t know | 1 | 6% |
| Not answered | 3 | 19% |
Themes from respondents who answered ‘no’ and used the open textbox included:
- the hierarchy of SODRP and UWWTR 1994 regulations being unclear
- prioritisation
- more general points on deliverability
In response, we have clarified that it is for water companies to determine the most effective way of complying with legal requirements and meeting SODRP targets. The interplay between SODRP and UWWTR 1994 requirements should not be used as a reason to delay improvements.
Question 16. Is it clear what factors water companies need to take into consideration when determining the timing of improvement works? For example, the prioritisation of statutory requirements or what water companies should do when additional improvements are identified that are not in existing business plans.
| Response to question 16 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 2 | 12% |
| No | 11 | 65% |
| I don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
| Agree | 1 | 6% |
Companies who answered ‘no’ and used the open text box were unclear about the requirement ‘as soon as feasibly possible’, how factors should be assessed, and noted the complexity of requirements. eNGOs commented that robust enforcement is needed.
We are confident that this section outlines timeframes for delivery in a coherent way. We stress that the EA and Ofwat retain some flexibility when working with water and sewerage companies on the timeframe for improvements.
Question 17. Do you agree that the approach for determining how and when to deliver storm overflow improvements delivers the objectives of the document (refer to section 1.1 ‘objectives’)?
| Response to question 17 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 0 | 0% |
| Agree | 2 | 12% |
| Neither agree or disagree | 2 | 12% |
| Disagree | 7 | 41% |
| Strongly disagree | 2 | 12% |
| I don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
| No | 1 | 6% |
Companies who disagreed and used the open text box commented that:
- they would struggle to deliver solutions in the time frame set out
- more detail was needed on how and when to deliver improvements
eNGOs mentioned that improvement should not be delayed and robust enforcement should be taken.
In response, we have added extra details where appropriate. For example, we’ve provided further clarification that companies should not delay implementation of improvements by waiting for annual EDM returns where a problem has been identified.
Question 18. Does the framework set out in the ‘delivering storm overflow improvements’ section enable water companies to capitalise on innovative solutions and technological advancements?
| Response to question 18 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 0 | 0% |
| Agree | 1 | 6% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 24% |
| Disagree | 6 | 35% |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 6% |
| I don’t know | 2 | 12% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
Comments from respondents who disagreed and used the open text box included that:
- there are missed opportunities in current nature-based solutions
- the guidance needs more detail on what innovative solutions are
- a stronger evidence base is needed on some improvements, such as constructed wetlands
In response, we’ve clarified that water companies should be able to demonstrate they have considered a range of options when identifying and designing schemes to improve storm overflows. This could include innovative alternative improvements.
Question 19. Is the ‘delivering storm overflow improvements’ section workable for water companies?
| Response to question 19 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 4 | 24% |
| No | 7 | 41% |
| I don’t know | 2 | 12% |
| Not answered | 4 | 24% |
Comments from those who answered ‘no’ and used the open text box include that:
- enhanced collaboration is needed between water companies and regulators
- the process is complicated and resource intensive
We are confident that the approaches outlined in this section are workable and clear. In outlining the role of regulators in planning and delivery of improvements, we hope this will lead to enhanced collaboration between water companies and regulators as their roles are clarified fully.
Question 20. Overall, do you anticipate that the impacts of the approach outlined in the ‘delivering storm overflow improvements’ section will be positive or negative?
| Response to question 20 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Positive impact | 6 | 35% |
| Negative impact | 5 | 29% |
| I don’t know | 1 | 6% |
| Not answered | 4 | 24% |
| Positive impact, Negative impact | 1 | 6% |
Themes from respondents who used the open text box included:
- deliverability and affordability challenges
- the approach not being consistent amongst regulators
- eNGOs noting a broader holistic approach was needed
We’ve reviewed the guidance to ensure it reflects the need for regulators to consider the deliverability, affordability and financeability of investment required to improve storm overflow performance over time.
Section 6: Enforcement
Question 21. Is the ‘enforcement’ section clear on the regulators’ enforcement roles?
| Response to question 21 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 10 | 59% |
| No | 4 | 24% |
| I don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
Key themes from respondents who answered ‘no’ include that more clarity is needed on:
- what differentiates regulators’ roles
- permits
We will continue to work with regulators to try and provide clarity to the sector on the different bodies’ roles.
Question 22. Is the ‘enforcement’ section clear on instances where the regulators might take enforcement action and the type of action they might take?
| Response to question 22 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 7 | 41% |
| No | 5 | 29% |
| I don’t know | 1 | 6% |
| Not answered | 4 | 24% |
Comments from respondents who answered ‘no’ and filled in the open text box included that:
- there was a lack of clarity on where action may be taken
- the role of Ofwat is unclear
- water companies and regulators needing to work together more collaboratively
We are confident that the processes outlined in the guidance will result in increased collaboration between water companies and regulators.
Section 7: Replacing sections of the 1997 guidance
Question 23. Are you aware of any additional technical documents or guidance being used by the industry to implement the UWWTR 1994 requirements, that are not mentioned in this ‘replacing sections of the 1997 guidance’ section?
| Response to question 23 | Number of respondents | Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 1 | 6% |
| No | 11 | 65% |
| I don’t know | 2 | 12% |
| Not answered | 3 | 18% |
Overall comments
Question 24. Do you have any other comments on the draft document that you would like us to consider?
Key themes from respondents who left additional comments included that:
- data should be published and readily available online
- regulators should show more alignment
- some guidance sections could benefit from having more visual aids, such as charts and diagrams
Water companies are now required to publish spill data in near real time. The EA quality assure an annual dataset of spills, which is published online and shared with other regulators.
Through developing this document with regulators, we hope we have demonstrated alignment between all parties in order to ensure a clear planning framework for the sector.
Government response
Responses to this consultation were mixed. In general, most responses that did not support the document tended to cite issues with specific sections.
The government believe it is important that document is both ambitious and deliverable, and that is reflected in the updates. Responses and feedback have been considered, and amendments have been made where possible, in particular to provide additional clarity where requested. We are appreciative of the feedback received and thank respondents for the time they spent giving valuable insights.
Key themes that emerged from the responses varied according to response group.
Water company feedback
Water companies frequently mentioned prioritisation of investigations, implementation timelines and challenges in the supply chain.
We have reviewed the guidance to ensure it reflects the need for regulators to take into account the deliverability, affordability and financeability of investment required to improve storm overflow performance over time. We have also ensured that it provides clarity to water companies on our expectations relating to prioritising investment.
Water companies spoke positively about the clarity this document provides ahead of PR24.
Several water companies expressed concerns about the requirement to ‘keep BTKNEEC assessments under review’. We have clarified that the depth of a review will generally depend on what’s changed since the previous assessment. We hope this clarity addresses deliverability and financeability concerns.
Water companies raised questions about requirements for investigations that emerge outside of the price review business planning process.
We have clarified that water and sewerage companies should aim to carry these out as soon as feasibly possible. Where relevant, priority must be given to scheduling investigations that are linked to statutory requirements.
For PR24, further information is provided in Ofwat’s final determination documentation, which explains the storm overflows uncertainty mechanism they have put in place.
We have provided clarity on several other areas in the document, including emphasising that companies:
- must comply with permit conditions, ensuring their permit details are up to date
- should liaise with regulators regarding any questions on permitting
We have also clarified that:
- companies must report to the EA after both stages of the two-stage test and provide all SOAF outcomes to the EA
- the EA will verify this information and make it available to Ofwat
eNGO feedback
eNGOs frequently mentioned regulatory interpretations, enforcement, and water and sewerage company legal responsibilities. Many asked for changes to be implemented faster than the timelines drafted.
We have ensured the guidance emphasises that improvements should be delivered as soon as possible.
Green infrastructure
The green infrastructure section received the most comments from stakeholders, who argued for further incentivisation of green solutions over grey solutions.
We have sought to clarify this section in the guidance: Defra expects the adoption of green infrastructure to be encouraged by the regulators in line with their own legal duties.
Regulators will retain some flexibility when working with companies on timeframes for delivering green solutions.
Defra is also continuing to work to promote alternative treatment solutions outside of this guidance. For example, sewerage undertakers must address the use of nature-based solutions, technologies and facilities within their network in their drainage and wastewater management plans (DWMPs). This comes under the requirement in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. This will help ensure nature-based solutions are properly considered as a solution to current and future drainage and sewerage issues.
DWMPs
Several respondents mentioned consistency and clarity with DWMPs. We have sought to provide clearer links to the DWMP cycle 2 guidance.
Water and sewerage companies should manage the current and future risks to and demands of their drainage and sewerage systems through their DWMP. DWMPs should be updated every 5 years and reviewed every year.
DWMPs became statutory from September 2024. Companies are expected to publish DWMPs ahead of PR29, after which statutory annual reviews will commence.
Other comments
Where comments received are locally specific, we have been unable to make changes to the draft information and guidance as it is a national document.
Some of the comments we received were more related to the EA’s consultations on their new storm overflows assessment framework (SOAF) and spill trigger frequency permitting (STFP) guidance. This means they are not applicable directly to this document. We have shared the themes of responses on these topics with regulators.
Next steps
Following the publication of this response document, Defra will continue to:
- engage with sector stakeholders and partners to implement the guidance
- drive improvements for the environment, customers and users across the water sector
Additionally, through the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system, the government will receive recommendations on how the water sector can deliver resilient and secure infrastructure within agreed timeframes. This will ensure that water companies will invest in improvements for the long term.