Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 12 March 2025

Introduction

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), alongside Welsh Government, consulted on proposals for reforming the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 (‘the Regulations’) from 12 November to 23 December 2024.

We proposed changes to 3 Core Reforms, including removing the automatic de-designation provision from the Regulations (Core Reform 1), including the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least ‘sufficient’, physical safety and environmental protections as a basis for final designation (Core Reform 2) and removing the fixed dates of the monitored bathing season from the Regulations (Core Reform 3).

We also consulted on 9 Technical Amendments detailed below, and 2 Wider Reforms that will form part of future phases, including clarification and expansion of the definition of ‘bathers’ to include other water users (Wider Reform 1), and using multiple monitoring points at each bathing water site where useful to classify water quality (Wider Reform 2). This document summarises feedback to that consultation and the UK and Welsh Government response to it.

Background

Bathing waters are currently managed under the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 which apply to both England and Wales. The Regulations transposed the 2006 EU Bathing Water Directive into domestic law and were assimilated into UK law under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.

Following final designation as bathing waters, coastal and inland waters are monitored by the Environment Agency in England and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in Wales respectively. This monitoring is used by local authorities to inform public health messaging on the health risks associated with bathing and identify where improvements in bathing water quality are necessary.

There have been changes in how and where people use bathing waters since the Regulations were introduced. In their current form, the Regulations take a generally ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to bathing water designations, water quality monitoring and the de-designation process. There may be advantages to reforming the Regulations to allow for greater consideration of site-specific factors in these processes. The purpose of the Regulations is to ensure the protection of public health through the use of monitoring and classifications. It is the intention of both UK government and the Welsh Government to pursue an increase in the designation of safe bathing water sites.

For these reasons, Defra and the Welsh Government have jointly consulted on potential reform measures to improve the current Regulations and increase flexibility. The decisions on whether legislation should be made to introduce reforms will be taken independently by relevant Ministers with respect to their own national jurisdictions. Regulations are currently shared, but the Environment Agency and NRW independently manage bathing waters within their own national jurisdiction.

We have proposed 3 Core Reforms, 9 Technical Amendments and called for views for 2 Wider Reforms.

Scope of consultation

The consultation was open from the 12 November 2024 to the 23 December 2024 and published online on Citizen Space and open to all participants.

Methodology

Citizen Space responses were downloaded and compiled to give results.

A team of people analysed the Citizen Space and email responses. Each response was read through a minimum of two times, once for initial theming and at least once by a different person for quality assurance.

The email response template was included with the consultation document on Citizen Space which allowed emailed quantitative and qualitative questions to be analysed accordingly.

Overview of respondents

In total we received 1,528 responses total across Citizen Space and by email. We provided an email template for respondents to fill out with the same layout as the online survey and have included these results with the Citizen Space responses. There were 1,333 Citizen Space and email template responses in total.

Type of Respondent (Citizen Space and emailed templates only)	Total	Percentage of total responses (%)*
As a member of the public with an interest in bathing waters	1,084	81
As an non-governmental organisation (NGO) or other non-profit public interest group	135	10
As a local authority	48	4
As a business that may be impacted by changing bathing water regulations	29	2
As a private landowner with bathing waters or potential bathing water on their land	20	2
As a representative of a water company	11	1
As a farmer or land manager whose land may impact local bathing water quality	3	0
A trade association	1	0
As a public representative (or example, councillor, MP)	0	0

*Please note, percentages have been rounded to whole numbers and may not total 100% and that not all email respondents filled this out, leaving it 2 short.

In addition to the above, we received and examined 185 emails from angling groups and members of the public that didn’t have a consultation template attached, highlighting concerns on the reforms’ potential impact on anglers, primarily focused on Wider Reform 1 (expanding the definition of ‘bathers’). We also received 10 emailed consultation responses that didn’t use the consultation template and weren’t part of the campaign response which we analysed separately.

Overview of responses

Of the 1,528 responses received, 1,273 were by Citizen Space and 255 were by email (60 of these were using the template).

Those that responded on citizen space or submitted an email template were asked to answer a mixture of open and closed text questions. Not all respondents answered all questions so the breakdown below will not always reach the full total for each question. The impact assessment questions (19 to 26) were only open to businesses, water companies, landowners, farmers, local authorities and NGOs, however, some individuals also answered these on the email template submissions.

All 3 Core Reforms consulted on had a majority of support from respondents. There was positive reception towards updating the bathing waters system, particularly for the proposed reforms on removing automatic de-designation and removing the fixed bathing season dates from the Regulations.

The 9 Technical Amendments proposed received both positive and negative levels of support, however more respondents agreed rather than disagreed with the proposals.

The call for views for both Wider Reforms revealed a large majority of support from respondents.

The summary of responses below is not an exhaustive list of all ideas provided by respondents but summarises the most common concerns, opinions and relevant outliers. Therefore, a range of qualitative terms are used, such as ‘many’, ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘a few’. The full breakdown of respondents to the consultation is available at Annex B.

Responses by question

Please note, all percentages have been rounded to whole numbers. Total percentages may not add up exactly to 100% as a result. These results represent the quantitative and qualitative responses from Citizen Space and the email templates only. Emails are touched on in further detail later in the document.

Core Reform 1

To remove the automatic de-designation provision from the Regulations. Currently, bathing waters are automatically de-designated following five consecutive years of ‘poor’ classification.

72% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this proposal.

17% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The remaining respondents neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

Business and organisational respondents were 66% in favour of this reform, whilst 15% were against. The remaining neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

The most common theme was that the current Regulations support inaction or giving up improving bathing sites before the 5 year limit is reached, with the second being that the Regulations don’t take into account the funding cycles and the time for improvements to start to take effect.

Core Reform 2

To introduce consideration of feasibility to improve to at least ‘sufficient’ water quality as well as considerations for physical safety and environmental protections in the designation process before a final designation is given.

56% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this proposal.

32% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The remaining respondents neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

Business and organisational respondents were 50% in favour of this reform, whilst 37% were against. The remaining neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

Health and safety was the most highly cited issue when responding to this proposed reform, with concern about the feasibility assessment process being the second, specifically around transparency, communication and the resource required.

If a site was not designated, the respondents were most in favour of digital platforms and multi-channel communications being used to inform the public of the decision.

Core Reform 3

To remove the fixed dates of the bathing season from the Regulations and into guidance. Season dates would be moved into guidance allowing the Environment Agency and NRW to adapt the dates to better suit local needs in the future.

70% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this proposal.

19% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The remaining respondents neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

Business and organisational respondents were 66% in favour of this reform, whilst 19% were against. The remaining neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

The most common theme respondents mentioned was that recreational water usage occurs all year round, with many also stating a desire for all year-round monitoring and testing of bathing sites.

Technical Amendments 1 to 9

1. Have a defined area for each bathing water
2. Remove the requirement to take a sample to end short-term pollution (STP) events
3. Remove the 7 day time limit in which a replacement sample under STP has to be taken
4. Remove the requirement to take a pre-season sample
5. Specify 95th percentile z-value to three decimal places, rather than the current 2 places
6. Remove requirement to identify and provide contact details of any person responsible for taking action over STP’ in bathing water profile
7. Remove specific requirement to identify sample and paperwork using indelible ink 
8. Removing the requirement to replace samples during Abnormal Situations
9. Amend regulation 5(1)(a) to specify a new target date by which all bathing waters should be classified as at least ‘sufficient’

45% of respondents were content with the 9 proposed Technical Amendments.

36% of respondents were not content with the 9 proposed Technical Amendments.

The remaining respondents didn’t know.

Businesses and organisations were 39% content with the Technical Amendments, and 42% were not content.

Of those that responded ‘not content’, Technical Amendment 2 of removing the requirement to take a sample to end short-term pollution (STP) events, was the most cited amendment. (18%.) This was followed by amendment 4, removing the requirement to take a preseason sample. (17%)

The most frequently chosen option for those who were not content was that the amendments may reduce the information available to the public about when it is safe for them to use a bathing water (25%). 23% also selected that the amendments may reduce the rigorousness of the monitoring methods.

Wider Reform 1

Clarification and expansion of the definition of ‘bathers’ to include other water users. ‘Bathers’ is currently understood by its common meaning as swimmers only.

90% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this proposal.

8% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The remaining respondents neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

Business and organisational respondents were 77% in favour of this reform, whilst 18% were against. The remaining neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

The most common theme we found by respondents was that the definition should cover all users that may be affected by water quality at a bathing site. This was followed by respondents stating other types of water users that were not in Question 27.

There were 1,331 respondents to this question, but they could click multiple answers which is why there are a lot of responses.

The water users that respondents cited as should be covered by the definition of ‘bathers’ in Question 27 are shown in the table below.

User Type	Out of 1,331 respondents	% of the respondents
Anglers (fishing)	742	56
Kayakers or Canoeists	1,166	88
Paddle Boarders	1,190	89
Paddlers (those in the water but not fully submerged)	1,161	87
Rowers	1,050	79
Small boat users	876	66
Surfers	1,193	90
Swimmers	1,265	95
Wind Surfers	1,158	87
Others*	360	27

*Others includes sports mentioned by respondents that weren’t included in the multi-select question, such as divers, people nearby the water and other water users that we will take into consideration.

This reform was of particular concern to anglers and angling groups, who submitted campaign responses to this consultation, and we address this later in the document.

Wider Reform 2

To introduce the use of multiple monitoring points at each bathing water site where useful to classify water quality.

91% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this proposal.

2% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

The remaining respondents neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

Business and organisational respondents were 78% in favour of this reform, whilst 6% were against. The remaining neither agreed nor disagreed or didn’t know.

Respondents most frequently referred to better accuracy, robustness of data and improved insights as to why they supported this proposed reform, whilst public awareness and confidence was the second most given reason.

Supplementary submissions and non template email responses

We received a wide range of responses of evidence used to inform views.

In response to this consultation, many respondents suggested a change in how monitoring occurs, such as what is tested in water samples and how that testing takes place. Support and reasoning for widening the definition of ‘bathers’ were also frequently given. We will consider this evidence in the future development of reforms.

Campaign responses

We received 196 responses from angling groups and individuals by email and Citizen Space. The raised concerns were mainly around Wider Reform 1 which proposes widening the definition of a ‘bather’. The concerns covered the environmental risks posed by the proposed reform, potential legal and ecological oversights which may increase pressure on threatened species such as the Atlantic Salmon and the impacts on the rights and enjoyment of anglers.

Some of these emailed responses included an emailed template which we analysed and included in the official results. More information on Wider Reform 1 is included below.

Impact assessment

We asked respondents on the behalf of businesses, water companies, landowners, farmers, local authorities and non-governmental organisations to fill in an impact assessment on the proposed reforms.

Of those that answered:

• 27% thought that the proposed reforms would have an overall positive economic impact.
• 15% thought that the proposed reforms would have an overall negative economic impact.
• 30% thought the proposed reforms would have a mix of positive and negative impacts.
• 29% Didn’t know or thought there would be no change.

Negative impact

Of those that said they thought that the proposed reforms would have an overall negative impact and answered question 21, 24% thought they would have a very significant impact, 52% thought they would have significant impact and 12% thought they would have a minor impact. The remaining didn’t know.

Of those that answered question 20, 12% thought that more than £1,000,000 per year was the estimated annual negative impact should the reforms be introduced.

17% thought that less than £10,000 per year was the estimated negative impact should the reforms be introduced.

The most common concern raised by respondents to the impact assessment was the impact the reforms would have on biodiversity and wildlife, the second most was a negative impact due to increased use of bathing waters.

Positive and mixed impact

Of those that said they thought that the proposed reforms would have an overall positive impact and answered question 24, 7% thought they would have a very significant impact, 25% thought they would have significant impact and 22% thought they would have a minor impact. The remaining didn’t know.

Of those that answered question 23, 5% thought that more than £1,000,000 per year was the estimated annual positive impact should the reforms be introduced.

18% thought that less than £10,000 per year was the estimated annual positive impact should the reforms be introduced.

Respondents most frequently brought up the importance of water quality as to why they saw the reforms having a positive impact, the importance of public health and safety was the second most given reasoning.

Of those that thought the proposed reforms would have a mixed impact of positives and negatives, the main concerns were around monitoring, testing and enforcement. The most positive theme was the impacts the reforms would have on the water users themselves.

UK government response and next steps

Subject to parliamentary approval, Defra intends to proceed with planned regulatory reform for the 3 Core Reforms and 9 Technical Amendments outlined in this consultation.

The consultation shows a large majority in favour for the two Wider Reforms (expanding the definition of ‘bather’ and introducing the use of multiple monitoring points at designated bathing sites). We will now begin policy development and research, including epidemiological studies, to determine how best to implement these reforms in future and take into account any potential environmental and societal impacts. We look forward to working closely with both local and national stakeholders and seeking their views on these reforms.

The Environment Agency is responsible for the monitoring of designated bathing sites and the 9 proposed Technical Amendments will be taken forward to modernise practice. These Technical Amendments do not exclude the potential for future Technical Amendments in this area. Specifically, regarding Technical Amendment 2, the Environment Agency believes that the current system of taking a sample to end a Short-Term Pollution (STP) event is no longer fit for purpose. Bacterial water quality is highly variable, and it can take 3 to 5 days for a sample to be analysed. This means that when results are available, they are unable to inform decision-making regarding STP events. The Environment Agency uses modelling to provide information to bathers which is updated each morning on the Environment Agency’s Swimfo platform.

We value all responses provided to question 32 and those that were emailed in to more widely inform the consultation and reforms. We will consider these moving forward in policy development.

The purpose of The Bathing Water Regulations 2013 is to protect the health of the general public through the use of monitoring and classifications. The planned reforms are focused on specific improvements to the operation and management of the bathing water system. The Independent Water Commission is focused on making recommendations to the UK and Welsh governments to strengthen the water sector and its regulatory framework. The final recommendations from the Independent Water Commission will be made to government in June after a thorough analysis of evidence that the commission has gathered. We will consider any recommendations from the Commission in any future policy development.

Application window for new bathing water designations

Following the analysis of responses, the Government will re-open the application window for new bathing water designations. The application window will be open from 15 May 2025, and we will publish updated application guidance alongside the re-opening of the window.

Welsh Government response and next steps

 Following the consultation on reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, the Welsh Government has carefully considered the feedback received. We are committed to progressing with the proposed reforms and Technical Amendments to ensure the protection and enhancement of our bathing waters. Our response is as follows.

Core Reforms

1. Removal of Automatic De-designation: We recognise strong support for removing this provision, allowing a more flexible, site-specific approach to managing bathing waters and ensuring water quality improvement efforts are not prematurely halted.
2. Consideration of Feasibility for Water Quality Improvement: We support the introduction of feasibility assessment to improve water quality to at least a ‘sufficient’ standard and ensuring both public safety and environmental protection goals are considered. This approach will also ensure that designations are based on realistic, achievable bathing waters.
3. Flexibility in Bathing Season Dates: We agree with moving fixed bathing season dates from regulations to guidance, allowing for locally adapted, shorter, or longer seasons based on bather needs and wider considerations.

Technical Amendments

The Welsh Government will proceed with the nine Technical Amendments to modernize practices, ensuring the Regulations remain fit for purpose while minimising unnecessary burdens on regulators.

Next Steps

The Welsh Government is committed to the successful implementation of these reforms and Technical Amendments. Pending the confirmation of a suitable legislative vehicle and Senedd approval, a Statutory Instrument (SI) will be used to amend the Bathing Water Regulations 2013. The SI is anticipated to be laid in the Senedd later this year, with the amendments expected to come into force in Autumn 2025.

In addition to the proposed reforms, the consultation included a call for views on two Wider Reforms: expanding the definition of ‘bather’ and introducing multiple monitoring points at designated bathing sites. The Welsh Government appreciates the feedback received on these matters, which may inform future phases of reform.

To ensure the effective delivery of these changes, the Welsh Government will work closely with Defra, regulatory bodies and Welsh stakeholders to develop clear guidelines and processes for assessments that reflect the diverse nature of our bathing waters.

We appreciate the valuable feedback received during the consultation and look forward to working with all stakeholders to enhance the management of our bathing waters.

Annex A

List of organisations that took part in the consultation. Note, we have removed organisations that have listed their submission as confidential.

Government organisations

Office for Environmental Protection

Natural Resources Wales

UK water industry

Anglian Water Services

Dŵr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) 

Northumbrian Water Group

Severn Trent Water Limited/Hafren Dyfrdwy Cyfyngedig

South West Water

Southern Water

Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

United Utilities Water (UUW)

Water UK

Wessex Water

Yorkshire Water

Local authorities

Adur and Worting Councils

Amroth Community Council

Bigbury Parish Council

Broads Authority

Castle Point Borough Council

Dartington Parish Council

Deal Town Council

Devon County Council

Dover District Council

Durham Heritage Coast Partnership, hosted by Durham County Council

East Devon District Council

East Suffolk Council

Exmouth Town Council

Faversham Town Council

Fylde Council

Havant Borough Council

Henley on Thames Town Council

Kingsbridge Town Council

Lake District National Park Authority

Lewes District Council

Looe Town Council

Lyme Regis Town Council

Neath Port Talbot Council

North Somerset Council

North York Moors National Park Authority

North Yorkshire Council

Pembrokeshire County Council

Pembrokeshire County Council

Plymouth City Council

Rattery Parish Council

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Rother District Council

South Oxfordshire District Council

South Tyneside Council

Southampton City Council

St Brides, Southerndown and Ogmore Community Council

Stevenage Borough Council

Swansea Council

Taunton Town Council

Thanet District Council

Thanet District Council

Vale of White Horse District Council

NGO or other non-profit interest groups

1st Cuddington Sea Scouts.

6th Tolworth Scout Troop

Afonydd Cymru

Angling Trust

Banbury Community Action Group

Bidwell Brook Partnership

Blueprint for Water - Environment and Countryside Link

British Triathlon and the Clean Water Sports Alliance

Bromley Friends of the Earth

Cam Valley Forum

Cambridge University Combined Boat Clubs

Canoe Camping Club, a special interest section of the Camping and Caravanning Club

Canoe Wales (CW)

Cardiff Canoe Club / Clwb Canw Caerdydd

Centre for Outdoor Activity and Community Hub

Clean River Kent Campaign (CRKC), Cumbria

Clean Water Action Group: Hastings and St Leonards

Cleaner Coastlines: Weston and North Somerset Plastic free campaign (aka Plastic-free Westons-super-Mare)

Colne Valley fisheries Consultative

Combe Martin Water Watch Group

Countryside Alliance

Cullercoats Harbour Working Group

Dorset Green Party

Earthwatch Europe

East Looe Town Trust (CIO)

ESCAPE Exmouth

Evesham Rowing Club

Faversham and Villages Water Testing - FAVWAT

Faversham Creek Trust

Fish Legal

FoE Newbury

For the love of water (FLOW) CIC

Friends of Castle Cove Beach Charity

Friends Of the Dart

Friends of the Lake District

Friends of the River Exe (FORE)

Friends of the River Teign

Friends of the River Wye

Friends of the Salcombe-Kingsbridge Estuary

Girlguiding (The Guide Association)

Glasbury to Hay River Wye Alliance

Guash Fishing Club

Hay Warren Anglers and Hay Community Woodland Group

Henley Mermaids

Ilkley Clean River Group, a community group representing Ilkley town.

Keep Wales Tidy

Lakeland Canoe Club

Leicester Rowing Club

LGA Coastal SIG

Llangorse Sailing Club

London Waterkeeper

Lune Rivers Trust

Maidenhead to Teddington Catchment Partnership

Marine Conservation Society

Merseyside Sports Partnership (MSP) - the Active Partnership for Liverpool City Region

National Trust

Newnham River Bank Club

NFU Cymru

Nidd Action Group

Oblique Arts

Outdoor Swimming Society

Paddle UK

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority

Peterborough & District Angling Association

Plymouth Sound National Marine Park

Pool Water Treatment Advisory Group

Port Sunlight Angling Club

Pupils 2 Parliament

Ribble Fisheries Consultative Association

Ribble Rivers Trust Ltd

River Lim Action group

River Sid Catchment Group

River User Group, RUG8

River Yealm Water Quality Working Group

Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne Catchment Partnership

Royal National Lifeboat Institution

Royal Society for Public Health

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Royal Yachting Association

‘Save The Deben’ Campaign Group, River Deben at Woodbridge and Waldringfield, Suffolk

Skegness Coastal Access for All

SOLAR (Save Our Lands and River)

South Chilterns Catchment Partnership

South Wales Outdoor Activity Providers Group & Wales Adventure Tourism Organisation

Sport and Recreation Alliance

Sport England

Sports and Recreation Alliance

Stop Ure Pollution

Stratford Upon Avon Boat Club

Sudbury Canoe Club

Surfers Against Sewage

Swim England

Tavy Walkham and Plym Fishing Club

Thame Valley Fisheries Preservation Consultative

Thames21- London Lea Catchment Host

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)

The Consumer Council for Water (CCW)

The Ithon Fishery

The National Federation of Women’s Institutes

The Outdoor Partnership

The Outdoor Swimming Society

The River Waveney Trust

The Rivers Trust

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)

The Saracen’s Head Angling Group

The Wild Trout Trust

Tidelines

Trout in the Trym

Up Sewage Creek

Usk Fishing Association

Visit Kent

Watchet Boat Owners Association

Water Safety Wales

Waters of Wales - Dyfroedd Cymru

Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association.

Wembury Marine Conservation Area Advisory Group

West Cumbria Rivers Trust

Westcountry Rivers Trust

Weston-super-Mare Chamber of Commerce

Whitburn Neighbourhood Forum

Whoosh Explore Canoe Club based in Sawbridgeworth

Wil About the Erme River

Wildheart Trust

Wylam Clean Tyne

Yealm Estuary to Moor

Businesses

Anglers and fishery owners

Arlesford Angling Association

Brighton Watersports

British Marine

Cardigan Bay Watersports

Country Land and Business Association

Crickhowell and District Angling Society

Dereham and District Angling Club

Eastleigh and District Angling Club

Ffynnon Taf Angling Club

Hampton Court Paddle Sports

Huby Angling Club, River Wharfe, Arthington, Yorkshire

Lakefield Angling Society

Marlow Canoe Club

McConks outdoors

Navigational Intelligence Ltd

Northumbrian Anglers Federation Limited

Planet Ocean Ltd

Snowdonia Watersports

Summerleaze Lake Residents Ltd

Tadcaster Angling and Preservation Association

The Adventure Paddle Company Ltd

The River Yealm Harbour Authority

Annex B – Citizen Space and emailed templates full dataset

Information about respondents

In what capacity are you completing this consultation?	Number	Proportion of total (%)
As a private landowner with bathing waters or potential bathing waters on their land	20	1.5
As a farmer or land manager whose land may impact local bathing water quality	3	0.2
As a representative of a water company	11	0.8
As a business that may be impacted by changing bathing water regulations	29	2.2
As a local authority	48	3.6
As an NGO or other non-profit public interest group	135	10.1
As a member of the public with an interest in bathing waters	1,084	81.4
As a public representative (for example, Councillor, MP,.)	0	0.0
A trade association	1	0.1
Total	1,331	100

Where are you currently based yourself?	Number	Proportion of total (%)
England	1,215	91.3
Scotland	9	0.7
Wales	102	7.7
Northern Ireland	1	0.1
Outside the UK, outside the EU	3	0.2
Outside the UK, inside of the EU	1	0.1
Total	1,331	100

Where does your business or organisation operate?	Number	Proportion of total (%)
England	212	57.0
Scotland	28	7.5
Wales	81	21.8
Northern Ireland	25	6.7
Outside the UK, within the EU	12	3.2
Outside the UK, outside of the EU	10	2.7
Not applicable	4	1.1
Total	372	100

Responses by question

Please note, percentages have been rounded to one decimal place and therefore may not total 100% on these tables.

Question 9: Core Reform 1

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed removal of automatic de-designation from the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Strongly agree	571	42.9
Agree	387	29.1
Neither agree nor disagree	108	8.1
Disagree	85	6.4
Strongly disagree	141	10.6
Don’t know	38	2.9
Not answered	1	0.1
Total	1,331	100

Question 11: Core Reform 2

To what extent do you agree or disagree that water quality, the feasibility to improve water quality to ‘sufficient’ standard, physical safety and environmental protections be considered before deciding whether to designate a site as a bathing water under the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Strongly agree	375	28.2
Agree	363	27.3
Neither agree nor disagree	128	10
Disagree	155	12
Strongly disagree	272	20
Don’t know	37	3
Not answered	1	0
Total	1,331	100

Question 13: Core Reform 2

How should the public be notified that a site has been considered as a bathing water but not designated on the grounds that it is not feasible to improve water quality to a ‘sufficient’ standard? - How should the public be notified about sites?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
On site signage	1,055	25.7
Notification on the Swimfo website in England or Bathing Waters Explorer Website in Wales	938	22.9
Notification on GOV.UK or GOV.WALES	858	20.9
Notification on the Environment Agency or NRW bathing water website	921	22.4
No additional notification	42	1.0
Other (please specify)	291	7.1
Total	4,105*	100

*This question allowed multiple answers.

Question 14: Core Reform 3

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed increase in flexibility of Bathing Season dates prescribed in the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Strongly agree	637	47.9
Agree	287	21.6
Neither agree nor disagree	111	8.3
Disagree	122	9.2
Strongly disagree	133	10.0
Don’t know	39	2.9
Not answered	2	0.2
Total	1,331	100

Question 16: Technical Reforms

Are you content with the 9 proposed Technical Amendments listed above? - Are you content with the Technical Amendments?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Yes	592	44.5
No	480	36.1
Don’t know	256	19.2
Not answered	2	0.2
Total	1,330	100

Question 17: Technical Amendments

Which of the 9 proposed Technical Amendments do you feel raises concerns or may have negative impacts? - Which amendments do you have concerns about?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
1. Have a defined area for each bathing water	275	8.9
2. Remove the requirement to take a sample to end short-term pollution (STP) events	556	17.9
3. Remove the 7-day time limit in which a replacement sample under STP has to be taken	448	14.4
4. Remove the requirement to take a pre-season sample	526	16.9
5. Specify 95th percentile z-value to three decimal places, rather than the current 2 places	103	3.3
6. Remove requirement to identify and provide contact details of any person responsible for taking action over STP’ in bathing water profile	319	10.3
7. Remove specific requirement to identify sample and paperwork using indelible ink	198	6.4
8. Removing the requirement to replace samples during Abnormal Situations	376	12.1
9. Amend regulation 5(1)(a) to specify a new target date by which all bathing waters should be classified as at least ‘sufficient’	303	9.8
Total	3,104*	100

*This question allowed multiple answers.

Question 18: Technical Amendments

What negative impacts do you foresee as a result of the technical amendment(s)?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
The amendment(s) reduces overall statutory monitoring requirements.	525	22.9
The amendment(s) may reduce the information available to the public about when it is safe for them to use a bathing water.	564	24.6
The amendment(s) reduces overall accountability on the EA or NRW.	510	22.2
The amendment(s) may reduce the rigorousness of the monitoring methods.	537	23.4
Other (please specify)	160	7.0
Total	2,296*	100

*This question allowed multiple answers.

Question 19: Impact Assessment

Do you consider it likely that any of the proposed reforms will have a negative or positive economic impact on your organisation? 

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Overall positive (This could include but isn’t limited to gain in profit/revenue or reduced expenditure)	66	5.0
Overall negative (This could include but isn’t limited to loss in profit/revenue or increased expenditure)	35	2.7
A mixture of positive and negative impacts	73	5.6
No change	42	3.2
Not answered	1,070	81.5
Don’t know	27	2.1
Total	1,313	100

Question 20: Impact Assessment

[If ‘Negative’ to question 19] At this time, which range best describes the estimated annual negative impacts on your business or organisation should reforms be introduced?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Less than £10,000/year	7	0.5
£10,001 to £50,000/year	8	0.6
£50,001 to £100,000/year	3	0.2
£100,001 to £1,000,000/year	1	0.1
More than £1,000,000/year	5	0.4
Don’t know	17	1.3
Prefer not to say	2	0.2
Not answered	1,250	96.7
Total	1,293	100

Question 21: Impact Assessment

[If ‘Negative’ to question 19] How would you describe the extent of the expected impact on your business or organisation?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Minor impact	6	0.5
Significant impact	22	1.7
Very significant impact	10	0.8
Don’t know	5	0.4
Not answered	1,249	96.7
Total	1,292	100

Question 23 Impact Assessment

[If ‘Positive’ to question 19] At this time, which range best describes the estimated annual positive impacts on your business or organisation should reforms be introduced? (not required)

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Less than £10,000/year	12	0.9
£10,001 to £50,000/year	6	0.5
£50,001 to £100,000/year	2	0.2
£100,001 to £1,000,000/year	2	0.2
More than £1,000,000/year	3	0.2
Don’t know	42	3.3
Prefer not to say	1	0.1
Not answered	1,212	94.7
Total	1,280	100

Question 24: Impact Assessment

[If ‘Positive’ to question 19] How would you describe the extent of the expected impact on your business revenue?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Minor impact	15	1.2
Significant impact	18	1.4
Very significant impact	5	0.4
Don’t know	31	2.4
Not answered	1,212	94.6
Total	1,281	100

Question 27: Wider Reform 1

To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should pursue Wider Reform of the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales to include widening the definition of ‘bathers’?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Strongly agree	982	73.8
Agree	207	15.6
Neither agree nor disagree	33	2.5
Disagree	18	1.4
Strongly disagree	82	6.2
Don’t know	7	0.5
Not answered	1	0.1
Total	1,330	100

Question 29: Wider Reform 1

Which water users should be included within the definition of ‘bather’?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Anglers (fishing)	742	7.3
Kayakers/Canoeists	1,166	11.5
Paddle Boarders	1,190	11.7
Paddlers (those in the water but not fully submerged)	1,161	11.4
Rowers	1,050	10.3
Small boat users	876	8.6
Surfers	1,193	11.7
Swimmers	1,265	12.4
Wind Surfers	1,158	11.4
Other (please specify)	360	3.5
Total	10,161*	100

*This question allowed multiple answers.

Question 30: Wider Reform 2

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the government should pursue Wider Reform of the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales to include the use of multiple monitoring points at bathing water sites?

Answer	Number	Proportion of total (%)
Strongly agree	938	70.5
Agree	273	20.5
Neither agree nor disagree	66	5.0
Disagree	15	1.1
Strongly disagree	15	1.1
Don’t know	22	1.7
Not answered	1	0.1
Total	1,330	100