E03186003_OEP Bathing Water England_Accessible

A review of implementation
of the Bathing Water

Regulations in England
November 2024
A review of implementation of
the Bathing Water Regulations
in England
Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 29(2) of the

Environment Act 2021
November 2024
The Office for Environmental Protection is a non-departmental public body, created in
November 2021 under the Environment Act 2021. Our mission is to protect and improve
the environment by holding government and other public authorities to account. Our work
covers England and Northern Ireland. We also cover reserved matters across the UK.
www.theoep.org.uk/what-we-do
© Copyright 2024
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence,
visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence.
This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:
The Office for Environmental Protection
Wildwood
Wildwood Drive
Worcester
WR5 2NP
www.theoep.org.uk
03300 416 581
[email protected]
ISBN: 978-1-5286-5147-9
E03186003 11/24
Printed on paper containing 40% recycled fibre content minimum
Printed in the UK by HH Associates Ltd. on behalf of the Controller of His Majesty’s Stationery Office
Contents
Foreword..........................................................................................................................................3
Executive summary and recommendations................................................................................7
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 19
1.1 About this report.............................................................................................................................. 20
1.2 What is a ‘bathing water’?............................................................................................................ 20
1.3 Why we are looking at the Bathing Water Regulations....................................................... 20
1.4 Focus of this report..........................................................................................................................21
1.5 Our approach...................................................................................................................................22
1.6 Structure of this report .................................................................................................................23
2. The Bathing Water Regulations........................................................................................... 25
2.1 Brief history of the Bathing Water Regulations ..................................................................... 26
2.2 Summary of the Bathing Water Regulations.......................................................................... 26
2.3 Blue Flag Awards.......................................................................................................................... 29
3. The state of bathing waters................................................................................................... 31
3.1 Dominance of coastal bathing sites in England .....................................................................32
3.2 Changing trends – increasing numbers of inland sites.......................................................32
3.3 Status of bathing waters in England.........................................................................................33
3.4 England’s bathing water quality compared to other UK administrations........................34
3.5 England’s bathing water quality compared to EU Member States ..................................34
4. Underlying principles of the Bathing Water Regulations..................................................37
4.1 Who the regulations are intended to protect – the meaning of ‘bathers’........................38
4.2 When the regulations provide protection – the bathing season .....................................42
4.3 Identifying bathing waters...........................................................................................................44
5. Classification, monitoring and reporting of bathing water quality.................................. 51
5.1 Classification of bathing waters..................................................................................................52
5.2 Monitoring of bathing waters ................................................................................................... 56
5.3 Reporting and communication issues .................................................................................... 62
6. Interaction of the Bathing Water Regulations with other law and policy...................... 67
6.1 The wider legal and policy framework......................................................................................68
6.2 The Water Framework Directive Regulations.........................................................................70
6.3 Water industry regulation and investment mechanisms.....................................................74
6.4 The Marine Strategy Regulations..............................................................................................78
6.5 Bye-laws that may restrict bathing or other recreational water use............................... 80
Glossary........................................................................................................................................ 83
Annex 1. Stakeholder engagement and expert review.......................................................... 85
2
Foreword
3
Foreword
Healthy rivers, lakes, and seas support a healthy economy, and allow nature to thrive.
Government cannot meet its ambitions and legally binding targets for species abundance,
the marine environment and for nature more generally without improving water quality.
Good quality open water is also increasingly important for human health. With more
people participating in outdoor water pursuits, it is ever more necessary to make sure
that enjoying England’s waters is not just fun, but good for us, rather than a risk to our
health and wellbeing.
The new Government is committed to cleaning up England’s rivers, lakes and seas, and has
recently announced a comprehensive review of the approach in relation to all things water.
We very much welcome that. For now, we see that it will be a complex, large scale, lengthy
and costly task to restore and protect the quality of water resources, improve water supply,
manage demand and improve infrastructure.
This report on the Bathing Water Regulations is one of a series of OEP reports relating to
various aspects of water. We hope the series as a whole is helpful to the Government as it
considers how best to proceed.
We have found the current Bathing Water Regulations out of step with the needs of today.
They originate from developments in the 1970s and 1980s and are a product of their
time. They have not kept pace with the evolving ways in which waters are now used for
recreational purposes, or with public expectations.
It is fair to say that the regulations have led to significant improvements in bathing water
quality over around three decades, although there has been some recent stagnation
and decline. And important elements of the regulations, such as they are, are being
implemented: in particular, our assessment is that the monitoring, classification and
reporting obligations of the regulations are being complied with.
Nevertheless, the lack of overall improvement in water quality observed in recent years,
combined with an increase in the number of bathing water sites failing to achieve sufficient
standards, is a cause for concern and has been widely reported. For the public to enjoy
the significant health and wellbeing advantages of being active, closer to nature and more
connected to their communities, the regulatory regime needs to be more expansive and
more effective.
We see room for improvement, for example, in how bathing waters are identified and in the
numbers of designated areas, particularly inland. There are also opportunities to strengthen
how bathing water objectives are set and achieved, and for increased coherence between
the Bathing Water Regulations and other laws and policies.
An effective regulatory regime will ensure that people can safely access recreational
waters and benefit from the significant health and wellbeing advantages that brings. In
this report, we make practical and specific recommendations to Government, Defra and
the Environment Agency to improve how the regulations are implemented and might
be developed.
4 Foreword
We are grateful to those who have given us their time and expertise, and provided
information to inform our work. We hope that our analyses and recommendations will be
valuable to Government as it undertakes the critical task of rethinking and revitalising the
management of water resources and cleaning up England’s rivers, lakes and seas.
Dame Glenys Stacey

Chair, Office for Environmental Protection
Foreword 5
6
Executive summary
and recommendations
7
Executive summary and recommendations
Overview
In this report, we look at the Bathing Water Regulations1 and their implementation in
England. We consider their effectiveness as a legal instrument, their application in practice
and their coherence with wider law and policy. In so doing, we assess whether the
regulations are positioned to achieve their aim of improving bathing water quality to protect
human health and facilitate recreational water use.
Background
The Bathing Water Regulations have their origins in European Union (EU) legislation. They
were originally made to transpose the EU Bathing Water Directive.2 They have now become
‘assimilated law’ by virtue of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.
The primary purpose of the Bathing Water Directive is the protection of human health.
It takes two indicators of pollution as test ‘markers’ and requires the measurement and
provision of public information about them as a means to deliver some assurance to the
public that water quality is safe for bathing.
The Bathing Water Regulations and the Directive from which they were derived can only
deliver results as part of a wider framework of water legislation. This is reflected in the
Bathing Water Directive which states3 that its purpose ‘is to preserve, protect and improve
the environment and to protect human health by complementing Directive 2000/60/EC’.
This is a reference to the ‘Water Framework Directive’ (WFD),4 the main EU law to protect
and improve the water environment.
In England, the WFD was transposed by the WFD Regulations.5 Like the Bathing Water
Regulations, the WFD Regulations are now ‘assimilated law’. We have reported on their
implementation in a separate, recent report.6
Protection of public health is also a key concern of the numerous groups engaging in the
changing patterns of use for bathing waters, as the public press to develop more bathing
waters, to use them for longer, and to use them differently. There is a now a much greater
variety of potential ‘bathers’ than when the current legislation was first developed, and
a whole variety of activities which result in people bathing, or swimming, from time to
time. This raises important questions about the ways in which the existing regulations
are working.
1 The Bathing Water Regulations 2013, Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 1675.
2 Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing
water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC [2006] OJ L 64/37.
3 Art 1(2), Bathing Water Directive.
4 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy [2000] OJ L 327/1.
5 The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017, Statutory Instrument 2017 No. 407.
6 Office for Environmental Protection, ‘A Review of Implementation of the Water Framework Directive Regulations and River Basin
Management Planning in England’ (2024) <www.theoep.org.uk/report/oep-finds-deeply-concerning-issues-how-laws-place-protect-
englands-rivers-lakes-and-coastal> accessed 28 May 2024.
8 Executive summary and recommendations

Previous assessments
Failure to achieve intended outcomes under the regulations is a longstanding issue. Over
our last two assessments7 8 of progress in protecting the natural environment in accordance
with England’s statutory Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP),9 we have outlined that the
previous Government had not achieved the 2015 target to ensure all bathing waters are
classified as at least ‘sufficient’ (the lowest quality considered safe for bathing). We viewed
progress against this target as being ‘partially on track’. We also highlight in our most
recent progress assessment that neither that target, nor the Bathing Water Regulations, are
comprehensive when assessed against current societal trends. We elaborate on that view in
this report.
In May 2024 we reported separately on implementation of the WFD Regulations in

England.10 That report highlights a failure to effectively apply the WFD Regulations to protect
rivers, lakes, coastal and other waters. It also identifies several underlying and seemingly
endemic issues relating to delivery mechanisms and governance structures to protect and
improve the water environment.
This previous work on the WFD Regulations and the EIP provides important context for
this more specific report on the Bathing Water Regulations. Building on these earlier
assessments, we highlight in this report the opportunity for the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency (EA) to improve the current
application of the regulations, and to consider, in applying their functions, how best to
respond to the current uses of waters for swimming and other recreational activity and the
known pollution risks to human health.
The Bathing Water Regulations

Implementation of the Bathing Water Regulations is led by Defra, acting on behalf of the
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘the Secretary of State’),
and the EA. Local authorities and water companies also have a role under the regulations
as outlined below. Though not specifically referenced in the regulations, their focus on
public health protection means that other authorities, particularly the Department of Health
and Social Care (DHSC) and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), additionally have
an interest.
The Bathing Water Regulations require the Secretary of State to identify, and maintain, a list
of bathing waters. These are surface waters where, among other criteria, the Secretary of
State expects ‘a large number of people to bathe’.11
Defra has produced guidance that sets out the approach for the Secretary of State to
identify bathing waters and how proponents should make the case for them.12 At the time
of this report, the application process is closed following the announcement under the
7 Office for Environmental Protection, ‘Progress in Improving the Natural Environment in England, 2021/2022’ (2023) <www.theoep.org.
uk/report/progress-improving-natural-environment-england-20212022> accessed 11 January 2024.
8 Office for Environmental Protection, ‘Progress in Improving the Natural Environment in England 2022/2023’ (2024) <www.theoep.
org.uk/report/government-remains-largely-track-meet-its-environmental-ambitions-finds-oep-annual-progress> accessed 22 January
2024.
9 Defra, ‘Environmental Improvement Plan 2023’ (7 February 2023) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-
improvement-plan> accessed 9 November 2023.
Management Planning in England’ (n 6).
11 Reg 3(1), Bathing Water Regulations.
12 Defra, ‘Designate a Bathing Water: Guidance on How to Apply’ (13 May 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/bathing-waters-
apply-to-designate-or-de-designate/designate-a-bathing-water-guidance-on-how-to-apply> accessed 7 June 2024.
Executive summary and recommendations 9

previous Government of a review of the regulations and guidance.13 The intentions of the
current Government have not yet been confirmed.
The EA must monitor water quality to classify bathing waters as ‘excellent’, ‘good’ ‘sufficient’
or ‘poor’. Defra, the EA, local authorities and water companies must also exercise certain
functions to manage and report on bathing waters. Among other requirements, Defra and
the EA must exercise their functions so that all bathing waters are classified as, at least,
‘sufficient’.14 They must also take such realistic and proportionate measures as they consider
appropriate to increase the number of bathing waters classified as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.15
In common with many other environmental laws, the regulations contain a ‘post-
implementation review’ provision.16 This requires the Secretary of State to review and
report on the regulations every five years. The reports must set out the objectives of the
regulations and the extent of their achievement. They must also assess whether those
objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved in a
less burdensome way.
Current status of bathing waters in England

England has 451 bathing waters.17 Of these, 82% (369) are coastal, 11% (50) are at
‘transitional’ sites (such as on estuaries), while the remaining 7% (32) are inland at rivers
and lakes.
These are relatively small numbers of bathing waters compared to other European
countries, particularly for inland sites. For instance, Germany has over two thousand bathing
sites on lakes and rivers and France has over a thousand.18
Similarly, the number of coastal sites identified as bathing waters is low when considered
against other figures. For instance, the independent UK ‘Beach Guide’ lists 828 beaches
in England.19 This illustrates the relatively limited focus and application of the current
regulations compared to other information that people may consider when deciding which
sites to visit for bathing or other recreational activities.
The most recent water quality results are from 2023, when there were 424 sites, of which
423 could be assessed. Some 66.4% of the designated bathing waters (281 sites) in England
achieved ‘excellent’ status. Although the figures have been broadly stable in recent years,
this is the lowest percentage since 2017.20 In 2023, 4.3% of bathing waters (18 sites) were
rated as ‘poor’.
While these outcomes represent a major improvement since the 1990s, they remain
worse than in most other European countries. For example, England’s results in achieving
‘excellent’ bathing water quality status exceed those of only three EU Member States –
Poland, Hungary and Estonia.
13 Defra, ‘Record Number of New Bathing Sites Get the Go Ahead’ (13 May 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/news/record-number-of-
new-bathing-sites-get-the-go-ahead> accessed 2 July 2024.
14 Reg 5(1)(a), Bathing Water Regulations.
15 Reg 5(1)(b), Bathing Water Regulations.
16 Reg 20, Bathing Water Regulations.
17 Defra, ‘Record Number of New Bathing Sites Get the Go Ahead’ (n 13).
18 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health, ‘Assessment of the Implementation of Environmental Law in Relation
to Bathing Waters’ (2024) s 5.2.
19 The Beach Guide, ‘Great British Beaches – UK Beach Guide’ (2024) <www.thebeachguide.co.uk/> accessed 9 September 2024.
20 Defra, ‘2023 Statistics on English Coastal and Inland Bathing Waters: A Summary of Compliance with the 2013 Bathing Water
Regulations’ <www.gov.uk/government/statistics/bathing-water-quality-statistics/2023-statistics-on-english-coastal-and-inland-
bathing-waters-a-summary-of-compliance-with-the-2013-bathing-water-regulations> accessed 4 July 2024.

Underlying principles of the regulations
Who the regulations are intended to protect – the meaning of ‘bathers’
In its application of the regulations to date, like many other authorities Defra has interpreted
‘bathing’ to mean swimming. The effect of this is that other water users, including surfers,
windsurfers, paddleboarders and people who take part in various forms of boating and
sailing, are not considered under the regulations. This limits the ability of the regime to
protect other water users against possible harmful pollution.
Our view is that the regulations, and the current interpretation of bathers as people who
intend to swim, no longer properly reflect societal practices. We therefore suggest that
Defra consider wider categories of people using bathing waters, given activities such as
surfing and paddleboarding. This is because such activities also result in immersion and
exposure from time to time and this is what the Bathing Water Regulations aim to address.
This engages the obligations of the Secretary of State under existing law. Specifically, when
the Secretary of State is ‘maintaining’ a list of bathing waters and when the EA is updating
bathing water profiles, they should consider the wider list of potential bathers. We also
note Defra’s intention, stated under the previous administration, to consult on applying the
regulations to wider categories of ‘bathers’.
The bathing water season

The regulations specify an annual ‘bathing season’ of 15 May to 30 September. These dates
determine when the public are provided with most protection and information concerning
the risks associated with polluted bathing waters.
For years, there has been concern that the bathing water season does not match the
modern use of bathing waters and that, as a result, public health does not fully benefit from
the protections intended. While Defra recognised and consulted upon this issue as long ago
as 2013, the regulations retain the current, fixed season.
In our view, this approach is inflexible and out of step with how people use the water
environment. We consider that an approach to bathing seasons that reflects public usage
could help better protect public health.
The identification of bathing waters

For a site to be eligible for designation as a bathing water, it must be used by an average
of at least 100 bathers a day during the bathing season, alongside other criteria. This
number is reflected in government guidance rather than being a requirement of the
regulations themselves.
We consider that an alternative approach to defining a ‘large number of bathers’ may be

more appropriate than relying on a single numerical threshold. We also question why the
current bathing water application guidelines strictly exclude counting bathers on organised
event days, as these occasions may expose the highest number of people to pollution and
increased risk of illness.
Further, we identify possibilities to increase transparency in the outcome of bathing water

applications and to consider the scope for a ‘pre-identification’ process. Such an approach
has been applied in Germany, for example, to address issues related to access, planning

and facilities, as well as investigations and works to maintain or improve water quality,
before formal identification of bathing waters.
Technical implementation
Classification of bathing waters
The regulations provide for bathing waters to be classified based on concentrations of
Intestinal enterococci (IE) and Escherichia coli (E. coli). These bacteria are known as ‘faecal
indicator organisms’ (FIOs) and act as ‘markers’ of pollution.
Currently, the classification system uses different evaluation approaches for ‘excellent’
and ‘good’ bathing water quality compared to ‘sufficient’ and ‘poor’. We consider that
the adoption of a single method of evaluation could provide a more consistent and
understandable classification system. This has been recommended by the World Health
Organization (WHO).21
The regulations also set out different classification standards for inland and coastal bathing
waters. We question the extent to which different standards can be justified. The science
here is complex, and the evidence limited. It may therefore be beneficial for Defra to revisit
this topic, with input from DHSC and the UKHSA as appropriate, for example through
incorporating insights from ongoing and future research.
When the EA has issued an alert and declared a ‘short term pollution’ event, samples can
be discounted from the classification process. While there is some distrust and confusion
among stakeholders about this discounting process, it is provided for in the regulations
and appears to be applied in accordance with them. We question whether bathing water
information could be provided that would both include and exclude these samples, for
comparison and to provide a more complete picture.
Monitoring of bathing waters

Our assessment is that the authorities in England are performing what is required of them
by the current regulations in respect of monitoring. However, the current provisions of
the regulations for the location and number of sampling points may not provide for a
representative assessment of water quality or health risks, especially at larger sites, over
their entire length or area. We are also concerned about risks of misclassification where
sample numbers are below those recommended by the WHO.
Our assessment highlights the need for further research into new and emerging techniques
for the assessment of FIOs with nearer real-time applications. Additionally, the rise in
applications for designation of inland bathing waters and the popularity of swimming
in freshwater environments suggests a need to increase attention on the presence of
cyanobacteria (‘blue-green algae’). Monitoring and warnings for cyanobacteria do happen
in practice. However, we consider that a more consistent approach in this area would
be desirable.
21 World Health Organization, ‘WHO Recommendations on Scientific, Analytical and Epidemiological Developments Relevant to the
Parameters for Bathing Water Quality in the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)’ (11 June 2018) <www.who.int/publications/m/item/
who-recommendations-on-scientific-analytical-and-epidemiological-developments-relevant-to-the-parameters-for-bathing-water-
quality-in-the-bathing-water-directive-(2006-7-ec)> accessed 27 July 2024.

Reporting and communication
We recognise the importance of the current classification system and the function it serves
as an indicator of effectiveness of the implementation of broader water law and policy.
However, we consider that there is scope for improvements to better ensure the public are
aware of their more immediate risks from bathing.
We consider the information on the EA’s ‘Swimfo’ website to be helpful. However, some
aspects of its accessibility and understandability for the general public could be improved.
There is currently a gap in pollution risk forecasting in relation to inland sites. This will
become more significant if increased numbers of such sites are newly designated, as
anticipated. It is therefore important that the EA continues to seek solutions to address
this issue.
Coherence with related law and policy

The wider legal framework
The Bathing Water Regulations do not operate in isolation. Rather, they form part of a wider
framework of laws and policies for the management, protection and improvement of the
water environment. Other elements include four legally binding water targets as well as a
target for the condition of protected features in relevant Marine Protected Areas under the
Environment Act 2021.
More broadly, the statutory EIP adopted under the Environment Act 2021 by the previous
administration provides a framework to pursue the goal of ‘clean and plentiful water’,
alongside other key plans and strategies. Following the change of administration in July
2024, the Government has announced its intention to undertake a review of the EIP by the
end of the year.22 The Secretary of State has also identified cleaning up rivers, lakes and
seas as one of Defra’s five core priority areas.23
The WFD Regulations

Our findings in our recent report on implementation of the WFD Regulations include that
progress is not on track to meet the Environmental Objectives set for most water bodies
under that regime. This is due to a range of factors including a lack of specific and certain
measures to achieve those objectives.24
Bathing waters have the status of ‘protected areas’ under the WFD Regulations. From our
assessment, we judge that many of the issues that concern how the WFD Regulations have
been implemented will also apply specifically to bathing waters.
For example, while River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) produced under the WFD
Regulations identify bathing waters as protected areas, they do not set out site-specific
information on measures to meet the applicable standards. Nor do they clearly reflect the
22 Defra, ‘Government Launches Rapid Review to Meet Environment Act Targets’ (1 August 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/news/
government-launches-rapid-review-to-meet-environment-act-targets> accessed 1 August 2024.
23 ‘Defra Secretary of State at Summer Stakeholder Reception’ (31 July 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/speeches/defra-secretary-of-
state-at-summer-stakeholder-reception> accessed 15 August 2024.

requirement to aim for anything beyond ‘sufficient’ status, despite the specific requirement
to do so in the Bathing Water Regulations.25
Additionally, there is no clear indication or target for what overall levels of bathing water
quality Defra and the EA aim or expect to achieve. We consider it would be valuable for
them to set such targets, aligned with specific objectives for individual bathing waters that
should be included in RBMPs.
Water industry regulation and investment

The application and regulation of measures in the water industry to limit sewage discharges
and ensure appropriate treatment are critical to meeting and raising bathing water
standards. However, they are not the only source of pressure on bathing waters, with
agriculture in particular also being significant.
Our report on the implementation of the WFD Regulations discusses several issues
regarding their interaction with mechanisms for water industry improvements and
investments. Again, these issues will also apply specifically when it comes to application of
the WFD Regulations to protect and improve bathing waters. We also highlight a number of
areas where it will be helpful for Government to confirm its intentions as regards particular
commitments made under the previous administration, including the Storm Overflows
Discharge Reduction Plan.26
A further, more specific issue is the cyclical timing of major water industry improvements,
which generally work on the basis of five-year investment cycles. The Bathing Water
Regulations provide that a bathing water that is ‘poor’ for five consecutive years is
automatically ‘declassified’. The result is that such a site is ‘no longer a bathing water’ and
‘permanent advice against bathing’ must be issued.
We consider that this provision for automatic declassification is inflexible and may be
counter-productive. Allowing up to five years to bring a site out of ‘poor’ status should not
be used as a basis to delay improvements that could be applied over a shorter timescale.
However, in some cases even five years may not be enough to identify, plan for and
implement measures in the water industry sector, or elsewhere, to achieve the necessary
improvements.
Marine strategy
We highlight that ongoing implementation of the Bathing Water Regulations, and their
possible review, should also take account of the interaction with the Marine Strategy
Regulations.27 This should address, for instance, the implications of only setting the
minimum objective of ‘sufficient’ for bathing waters under the WFD Regulations, for the
pursuit of ‘Good Environmental Status’ under the Marine Strategy Regulations.

26 Defra, ‘Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan’ (2023) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/6537e1c55e47a50014989910/Expanded_Storm_Overflows_Discharge_Reduction_Plan.pdf> accessed 10 July 2024.
27 The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010, Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 1627.

Bye-laws that restrict swimming or other recreational activity
Finally, we discuss the interaction of the Bathing Water Regulations with bye-laws that
may prohibit or restrict swimming or other uses of water. We do not question the need for
authorities to impose such controls in certain circumstances. However, we consider that
there is the potential for the interaction of different measures to act as a barrier to improving
water quality under the Bathing Water Regulations and, by extension, the WFD Regulations.
In conclusion
Overall, we see a regime that is being implemented effectively in terms of compliance
with monitoring, classification and reporting obligations in the Bathing Water Regulations.
Application of the regulations has also seen significant improvements in bathing water
quality since the regime was introduced in the 1990s, albeit with some recent stagnation
and decline.
At the same time, we see room for improvement in how the current regulations are applied,
including how bathing waters are identified and in the numbers of designated areas,
particularly at inland sites. There is also considerable scope to achieve better outcomes,
with England currently being one of the worst performers in Europe in realising ‘excellent’
bathing waters. We think there needs to be a clearer, more ambitious and purposeful
approach to setting and pursuing objectives for bathing waters under the WFD Regulations.
It also needs a greater degree of coherence between the Bathing Waters Regulations
and other laws and policies to address all relevant sources of pollution, including from
agriculture as well as the water industry.
More fundamentally, we consider that the design of the current regulations is not
comprehensive when assessed against current societal trends. In particular, their focus
on ‘bathing’ and a fixed ‘bathing season’ limits the ability of the regime to protect people’s
health when they use waters for other recreational purposes or at other times. Public
expectations and uses of water for leisure purposes have moved on significantly since the
legislation was developed. The regulations have not kept up with those changes.
While some of the more specific points that we highlight in this report can be dealt with as
matters of implementation under the current regulations, changes in law would likely be
necessary to deal with the broader issues. They will therefore be a matter for Government
to consider in any review of the regulations alongside other relevant factors, including costs
and benefits.
We recognise that it will take some time for Government to finalise its plans as regards
the future direction of water policy and law. As it does so, we highlight the importance of
Government confirming its intentions as regards the WFD Regulations and the Bathing
Water Regulations. For reasons identified in our previous report on the WFD Regulations,
and in this report on bathing waters, we support the review of both regimes to inform
improvements in their implementation and strengthen their underlying legislative
and governance provisions. We also highlight a number of possible improvements in
implementation under the current regulations.

Our recommendations
We make 12 recommendations to Defra and the EA. These address issues in the
implementation of the regulations, their design and their coherence with related law
and policy.
Recommendation 1. We recommend that, in applying its duty to review the Bathing

Water Regulations, and in considering what is meant by waters ‘at which the Secretary
of State expects a large number of people to bathe’, Defra should consider whether
wider categories of water users need now to be taken into account, given the purpose
of protecting human health. To this end, we recommend that Defra consider not just
those people whose express intention is to swim, but also those who would normally or
frequently expect to be immersed (such as surfers) as well as other recreational users
who may be exposed to polluted water from ‘bathing’ from time to time.
Recommendation 2. In any review of the regime, we recommend that Defra consider
options to expand the bathing water season to better match the actual usage of bathing
waters by significant numbers of people. This could include considering the possible use
of different season lengths at different locations.
Recommendation 3. We recommend that Defra revise the current bathing water
identification criteria to better reflect the provisions of the regulations and the protection
intended to be provided where large numbers of people are expected to bathe. To this
end, we recommend that Defra base its identification of bathing waters on a properly
representative assessment of current use and necessary protection of human health
rather than fixed numbers of bathers or infrastructure. We also recommend reconsidering
the current exclusion of higher levels of use of waters during organised events.
Recommendation 4. We recommend that all material proposals for changes to the
bathing water identification criteria and process should be subject to public consultation
before they are finalised. Where applications are rejected, Defra should provide a
statement of the reasons for the rejection as a matter of routine in the interests of
transparency and good governance.
Recommendation 5. We recommend that any review of the Bathing Water Regulations
by Defra should include further consideration of whether a structured and transparent
pre-identification process, such as that operating in Germany, might be beneficial.
Recommendation 6. We recommend that, in any review of the regulations, Defra
consider: a) the potential benefits of using 95 percentile evaluation for all classifications
as suggested by the WHO; and b) the approach to disregarding samples, to ensure
stakeholders understand what is being done and why and to make best use of the data
collected. We also recommend that, in any such review, Defra, with input from DHSC
and the UKHSA as appropriate, consider further the justification behind the different
standards for inland and coastal bathing waters.
Recommendation 7. In any review of the Bathing Water Regulations, we recommend
that Defra and the EA consider the scope and options to update the monitoring and
sampling regime. We recommend that this should include considering the potential to: a)
take a more flexible approach to determining the most representative sampling locations;
b) increase the number of sample points on long stretches of identified areas; c) develop
proposals for the consistent monitoring of and response to cyanobacteria blooms; and d)
provide increased transparency and explanation of monitoring decisions so that people
understand what is being done, when, how and why.

Recommendation 8. We recommend that Defra and the EA pursue the further
development of short-term pollution risk forecasting systems so health risks can be
better understood and communicated to the public with greater speed, including for
inland sites. While establishing accurate levels of E. coli and IE may for the time being
only be possible via laboratory analysis, event duration monitoring data provides a
near real-time indication of risk to harm at affected bathing sites. We therefore also
recommend that Defra and the EA consider how best to align implementation of the
Bathing Water Regulations with that of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations,
as well as relevant provisions of the Environment Act 2021, so event duration monitoring
data can be fed into pollution risk forecasting systems.
Recommendation 9. We recommend that any review of the regime include
consideration of options to improve the quality, clarity, and accessibility of bathing water
information. We suggest this could include online resources and improved use of social
media and Quick Response (QR) codes as well as physical signs at bathing sites.
Recommendation 10. In their ongoing implementation of the WFD Regulations, including
addressing our earlier recommendations on this regime, we recommend that Defra and
the EA ensure that: a) the objectives set for bathing waters in RBMPs are sufficiently
ambitious and recognise the duty in Regulation 5(1)(b) of the Bathing Water Regulations
to aim for ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ where appropriate; b) those objectives are backed up by
clear, specific and time-bound measures to achieve them at the level of individual water
bodies; and c) the identification of those measures considers all relevant pressures,
including from agriculture and other sources as well as the water industry, and the
impacts for the water environment as a whole.
that Defra revisit the current approach to the declassification of bathing waters, which
can result in successive ‘poor’ results leading to automatic declassification and loss of
bathing water status even where improvements are in progress.
Recommendation 12. In any review of the regime, we recommend that Defra clarify the
relationship between provisions under the Bathing Water Regulations for identifying and
monitoring bathing waters, and giving advice against bathing, with rights and restrictions
in common law and bye-laws. This should consider not just the current practical
interpretation of ‘bathing’ to cover swimmers but also the possible application of the
regulations to cover other recreational water users.
As can be seen, some of the above recommendations above are concerned with issues
of implementation that can be addressed under the current regulations. They are not
dependent on any review of or change to the regulations. These are recommendations 3
and 4 (bathing water identification criteria and process), 8 (pollution risk forecasting) and 10
(improvement of bathing water standards through implementation of the WFD Regulations).
The other recommendations are concerned with areas which we suggest would benefit
from consideration under a wider review, as provided for in the regulations, to assess how
the regime might be updated to ensure it can achieve the outcomes intended.

18
1. Introduction
19
1. Introduction
1.1 About this report
This report looks at the effectiveness of the Bathing Water Regulations 201328 (‘the Bathing
Water Regulations’) and their implementation. It considers their effectiveness as a legal
instrument, their application in practice and their coherence with wider law and policy.
After briefly introducing what is meant by a ‘bathing water’ (Section 1.2), this introductory
chapter explains why we have looked at this subject (Section 1.3), our approach to the work
(Section 1.4) and the structure of the report (Section 1.5).
In conducting the project, we have also looked in parallel at the equivalent issues and
legislation in Northern Ireland. We are producing separate reports for each jurisdiction. Both
reports will be published on the OEP website.
1.2 What is a ‘bathing water’?

The term ‘bathing water’ has a specific legal meaning. Rather than simply referring to any
area of water where people bathe, ‘bathing waters’ are defined areas that are formally
identified under the Bathing Water Regulations.
When an area of water is legally designated as a ‘bathing water’, it becomes subject to

specific environmental regulations designed to protect public health. These regulations are
intended to ensure that water quality is safe for bathing, to provide warnings where it is not,
and to enhance the environmental, societal, and economic benefits associated with clean,
accessible bathing areas.
1.3 Why we are looking at the Bathing Water Regulations

In recent years, there has been a significant rise in outdoor water-based activities, including
‘wild swimming’. This is representative of a shift in how the public engages with natural
waters, moving beyond the patterns of use when the first laws to protect bathing waters
were established in the 1970s.
The importance of bathing waters extends beyond recreational enjoyment, encompassing

public health and wider benefits. Activities like swimming in natural waters can foster social
connections and enhance people’s relationship with nature, as well as boosting well-being.
It is regrettable, therefore, that bathing can also carry risks of exposure to pollution that may
cause illness. In this regard, the designation and management of bathing waters has been a
powerful tool for both human health and environmental restoration. Substantial investments
in urban wastewater treatment plants and improvements in wastewater networks since the
1990s have led to a large reduction in organic pollutants and pathogens at most bathing
water sites in England. Despite this, there is room for significant further improvement in the
quality of England’s bathing waters.
There are also questions about how the Bathing Water Regulations are implemented,
whom they serve to protect, and their standards of protection. These concerns have been
exacerbated by public and political disquiet over the state of the wider water environment,
20 1. Introduction
including regulation of the water industry, storm overflows, and diffuse pollution from
agriculture.
1.4 Focus of this report

The Bathing Water Regulations are concerned with identifying and managing bathing
waters to protect people against risks of harmful exposure to water pollution. They aim to
improve bathing water quality to protect human health and facilitate recreational water use.
They also sit within a wider body of water law and policy intended to protect and improve
the environment and achieve other outcomes.
In looking at the implementation of the regulations, we have considered the following broad
questions:
z What do the Bathing Water Regulations aim to achieve and require and how have they
been applied?
z Does their underlying approach offer a good basis to achieve their aims?
z How effective has their implementation been?
z Are they effectively integrated in a coherent, wider body of water law and policy?
z What are the barriers to achieving the regulations’ objectives, and how could these be
addressed?
z Are there areas of the current regulations, guidance and related law and policy that
could be improved?
Overarching issues
This review of the Bathing Water Regulations builds upon earlier work by the OEP
on implementation of the Water Framework Directive Regulations 2017 (‘the WFD
Regulations’).29 Our report on that project highlights a failure to effectively apply the WFD
Regulations to protect rivers, lakes, coastal and other waters.30 It also identifies several
underlying and seemingly endemic issues relating to delivery mechanisms and governance
structures intended to protect and improve the water environment.
In addition, the OEP has reported31 separately on progress in protecting the natural
environment in accordance with England’s current statutory Environmental Improvement
Plan (EIP).32 That report assesses progress towards the target to ensure that all bathing
waters were classified as at least ‘sufficient’ (the lowest level of quality considered safe
for bathing), as ‘partially on track’. It also sets out our view that neither that target, nor
the Bathing Water Regulations, are comprehensive when assessed against current
societal trends.
These findings from our previous work on the WFD Regulations and the EIP provide an
important context for this more specific report on the Bathing Water Regulations, which
operate within the same wider legal and policy framework.
29 The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017, Statutory Instrument 2017 No. 407.
31 Office for Environmental Protection, ‘Progress in Improving the Natural Environment in England 2022/2023’ (n 8).
32 Defra, ‘Environmental Improvement Plan 2023’ (n 9).
1. Introduction 21
We therefore highlight the opportunity for Government to review the regime with a view to
considering the current use of waters for swimming and other recreational activity and the
known pollution risks to public health.
Review of the Bathing Water Regulations

Under the administration of the previous Government, the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced its intention to consult on reforming the Bathing
Water Regulations in May 2024.33 The current Government’s stance on this matter has
not yet been confirmed. However, our findings, coupled with the growing prominence of
health concerns related to water activities and the increasing popularity of ‘wild swimming,’
suggest that now is an opportune time to revisit and consider the possibility to update the
existing framework and its implementation.
The European Commission is currently reviewing the European Union (EU) legislation that
originally underpinned the Bathing Water Regulations in England.34 While the UK is no
longer bound by EU measures, the Commission’s review may provide valuable insights for
Defra from the application of similar bathing water legislation across various countries.
1.5 Our approach

The project commenced in 2023 alongside our work on the WFD Regulations. It has
encompassed several elements.
Firstly, we have reviewed relevant legislation, guidance documents, implementation reports

and literature.
Secondly, we convened a stakeholder group to facilitate broad-based engagement. This

group comprised representatives from public authorities, the water and farming sectors,
non-governmental organisations and professional associations across England and
Northern Ireland. Two virtual meetings were held with this group in 2023, providing a
platform for diverse perspectives and insights. Annex 1 outlines the nature and scope of our
stakeholder interactions.
Thirdly, we have also engaged with the key public authorities in the implementation of the
Bathing Water Regulations. This involved discussions with and review of information from
Defra and the Environment Agency (EA).
Fourthly, to support the project, we commissioned independent research from the

consultancy Stantec and the Centre for Research into Environment and Health. We have
published their report on our website.35 The findings and recommendations of these
consultants reflect their independent views and are not necessarily those of the OEP. We
cite their work as evidence in this report where relevant and refer to it as the ‘Bathing
Waters Technical Report’.
This OEP report builds on all of the components above. It has been reviewed and critiqued
by external, independent experts, identified in Annex 1, whose contributions we gratefully
acknowledge.
34 European Commission, ‘Bathing Water’ (13 June 2024) <https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/bathing-water_en> accessed
17 June 2024.
35 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 18).
22 1. Introduction
In formulating our findings and recommendations, we have applied an evidence-based
approach, ensuring that our conclusions are rooted in the available data and evidence. We
have referenced stakeholder views where relevant to contextualise our analysis. We also
identify areas where information is lacking, suggesting these as potential areas for further
government review.
The scope of this report is primarily a legal and practical examination of the Bathing Water
Regulations and their implementation. Broader scientific inquiries and wider socio-economic
implications fall outside of this assessment.
1.6 Structure of this report

After this introduction, the remaining chapters of the report are as follows.
Chapters 2 and 3 are intended to provide relevant facts and context as background for the
analytical content in Chapters 4 to 6 that follow.
Chapter 2 outlines the history of the Bathing Water Regulations, including their origins in
European law. It also summarises the main components of the regulations and how they are
implemented.
Chapter 3 outlines trends in and the present quality of bathing waters. It compares
outcomes in England with other UK administrations and EU Member States.
Chapters 4 to 6 are our main analytical chapters. They look at a number of specific issues
in turn, setting out the current position, discussing the main issues of note, and then
presenting our view and any specific recommendations.
Chapter 4 considers certain guiding principles that underpin the Bathing Water Regulations.
It looks at the meaning of ‘bathers’, the definition of the ‘bathing season’ and the process
of identifying bathing waters. These are foundational elements that effectively define the
scope of the regime.
Chapter 5 discusses the regime’s technical water quality classification and monitoring
processes, including methods and frequency of sampling. It also looks at the effectiveness
of public reporting on bathing water quality.
Finally, Chapter 6 examines the interaction of the Bathing Water Regulations with other
environmental laws and policies, including the WFD Regulations and the Urban Waste Water
Treatment Regulations.36 It also discusses how water industry regulation and investment
mechanisms relate to bathing water quality issues.
36 The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994, Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 2481.
1. Introduction 23
24
2. The Bathing Water
Regulations
25
2. The Bathing Water Regulations
This chapter summarises the background to and provisions of the Bathing Water
Regulations. The Bathing Waters Technical Report provides additional information.37
2.1 Brief history of the Bathing Water Regulations

The current approach to identifying and regulating bathing waters in England began to
take shape in the 1970s. This was driven by the 1976 European Economic Community (EEC)
Bathing Water Directive.38 That Directive’s aim was to improve bathing water quality to
protect human health and facilitate recreational use of natural waters across what was then
the EEC and is now the EU.
The 1976 Bathing Water Directive should have been ‘transposed’ (meaning written into
domestic law, to give it effect) within two years of adoption. However, it was not until after
the Water Act 1989 was passed that the Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991
were produced which implemented the Directive in the UK.39
The EU revised the European bathing water regime in 2006, adopting a new Bathing
Water Directive40 to replace the 1976 law. The objective of the new Bathing Water Directive
was ‘to protect human health and to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the
environment’41 A key provision in the new Directive was for all bathing waters to achieve
at least ‘sufficient’ status by 2015, coupled with an ongoing requirement to increase the
number classified as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’.
The UK Government initially transposed the 2006 Bathing Water Directive into national law
through the Bathing Water Regulations 2008.42 These regulations were later replaced by
the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 (which we refer to in this report as ‘the Bathing Water
Regulations’).
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the Bathing Water Regulations became ‘retained EU
law’ under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018,43 later renamed ‘assimilated law’
under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.44 This renaming does not
change the legal effect of the regulations.
2.2 Summary of the Bathing Water Regulations

The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of some of the main legal provisions of
the Bathing Water Regulations and how they are applied in practice.
37 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 20) s 2.
38 Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water [1976] OJ L31/1.
39 Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991, Statutory Instrument 1991 No. 1597.
40 Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing
water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC [2006] OJ L64/37.
41 Art 1, Bathing Water Directive.
43 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, Ss. 2–4.
44 Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, S. 5.
26 2. The Bathing Water Regulations

Implementation responsibilities and interests
Implementation of the Bathing Water Regulations is led by Defra, acting on behalf of the
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the EA. Local authorities
and water companies also have a role under the regulations as outlined below. Though not
specifically referenced in the regulations, their focus on public health protection means that
other authorities, particularly the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the UK
Health Security Agency (UKHSA), additionally have an interest.
Identification of and reporting on bathing waters

The Secretary of State must identify bathing waters and must maintain and annually publish
a list of those bathing waters and their ‘classifications’.45 The Secretary of State must also
publish an annual report on the ‘bathing season’ in the previous year.46 The meaning of the
‘bathing season’ and the approach to ‘classification’ are outlined below.
Defra publishes the list of bathing waters47 and the annual bathing water reports.48
In practice these are referred to as ‘designated’ bathing waters, although this term is not
used in the regulations. We discuss the designation process in Section 4.3. A key issue
underpinning this topic is the related issue of the meaning of ‘bather’ and ‘bathing’, which
we explore in Section 4.1.
The bathing season

The regulations state that the ‘bathing season’ begins on 15 May and ends on 30
September each year.49 Important aspects of the regime are based on this bathing season,
which we discuss in Section 4.2.
Classification of bathing waters

The regulations require the EA to classify bathing waters as ‘poor’, ‘sufficient’, ‘good’ or
‘excellent’.50 These classifications are based on measurements of the presence and levels
of the bacteria Intestinal enterococci (IE) and Escherichia coli (E. coli). These two bacteria
in this context are referred to commonly as ‘faecal indicator organisms’ (FIOs). We discuss
the state of bathing waters in Chapter 3, and the approach of the classification system in
Chapter 5 (Section 5.1).
General duties of the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency to

achieve bathing water quality standards
The Secretary of State and the EA must exercise their ‘relevant functions’ so as to ensure
that, from 2015 onwards, all bathing waters are classified as at least ‘sufficient’.51 ‘Relevant
functions’ are defined by reference to a list of functions in the WFD Regulations.52

47 Defra, ‘Bathing Waters: List of Designated Waters in England’ (13 May 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/bathing-waters-
list-of-designated-waters-in-england> accessed 17 July 2024.
48 Defra, ‘Bathing Water Quality Statistics’ (6 December 2023) <www.gov.uk/government/statistics/bathing-water-quality-statistics>
accessed 17 July 2024.
50 Reg 11 and Sched. 5, Bathing Water Regulations.
52 See Sched. 2, WFD Regulations for the list of ‘relevant functions’.
2. The Bathing Water Regulations 27

The Secretary of State and the EA must also take such realistic and proportionate measures
as they consider appropriate with a view to increasing the number of bathing waters
classified as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.53 We discuss the implementation of these requirements,
including the link with the WFD Regulations, in Chapter 6 (Section 6.2).
Sampling, monitoring and investigations

The EA must carry out sampling, monitoring and investigations to assess the condition of
bathing waters.54 This includes monitoring for the purposes of classifying each bathing
water. The regulations set out details of sampling methods, locations, frequency, storage,
transport and laboratory parameters to be analysed. We discuss issues concerned with
monitoring in Section 5.2.
Bathing water profiles

The EA must prepare a ‘bathing water profile’ for each bathing water.55 This contains
information such as a description of the bathing water and the causes of pollution. The EA
publishes the profiles on its ‘Swimfo’ webpages.56
Public communication and reporting

The regulations set out a range of provisions for communicating and reporting on the
condition of bathing waters. These include obligations on the relevant local authority to
disseminate information to the public during the bathing season, and on the EA to provide
information on bathing water classifications and profiles.57 We discuss issues of reporting
and communication under the regulations in Section 5.3.
Management measures
The regulations also require the EA, or the relevant sewerage undertaker or local authority,
to take bathing water ‘management measures’ in specific situations such as ‘pollution
incidents’, ‘abnormal situations’ and ‘short term pollution’.58
These management measures are not the main mechanisms through which the requirement
to meet the ‘sufficient’ or better classification of bathing waters is achieved. Rather, these
outcomes should be realised through the application of measures under the wider body of
water law and policy, of which the Bathing Water Regulations form a part. This is reflected
in the obligations on the Secretary of State and the EA concerning the application of their
‘relevant functions’ as noted above.
Declassification of bathing waters

As a specific element of the management measures, the EA and the relevant local authority
are subject to requirements in the regulations concerning the provision of information
when a bathing water is classified as ‘poor’. This includes an obligation on the EA to issue
‘permanent advice against bathing’ if it has classified a bathing water as ‘poor’ in five
consecutive years. In these cases, the bathing water is ‘declassified’ and as such is ‘no

54 Regs 8, 10 and 11 and Sched. 4, Bathing Water Regulations.
55 Reg 7 and Sched. 3, Bathing Water Regulations.
56 Environment Agency, ‘Swimfo: Find a Bathing Water’ (2024) <environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/profiles/> accessed 17 July 2024.
57 Regs 9 and 14, Bathing Water Regulations.
58 Regs 12-13, Bathing Water Regulations.
28 2. The Bathing Water Regulations

longer a bathing water’.59 In practice, the term ‘de-designation’ is used to describe what the
regulations refer to as ‘declassification’.60
The Secretary of State must publish annually details of the former bathing waters at which
permanent advice against bathing is in place.61 The declassified sites are shown on the EA’s
‘Swimfo’ website.62 We discuss issues associated with declassification stemming from failure
to achieve the necessary standards in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3).
Guidance and enforcement

The regulations contain provisions for the relevant minister to give guidance to the local
authorities or the EA on their implementation.63 They also provide for the minister or the
EA to take enforcement action against local authorities or private operators in respect of
their duties.64
Review
The Secretary of State must review and report on the regulations every five years. The
reports must set out the objectives of the regulations and the extent of their achievement.
They must also assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to
which they could be achieved in a less burdensome way. 65
2.3 Blue Flag Awards

The Blue Flag programme, which is not within the regulatory obligations, is run by the
Foundation for Environmental Education located in Denmark.66 Within England, the scheme
is managed by Keep Britain Tidy.67 There are currently 72 English beaches which have been
awarded Blue Flag Status for 2024/25.
This programme is world renowned, with a series of strict environmental, educational,

safety-related and access-related criteria which must be met and maintained for a beach
to be awarded the Blue Flag status. This includes the bathing water being classed as
‘excellent’ as defined by the regulations.
59 Reg 13(2)-(3), Bathing Water Regulations.

60 Defra, ‘Bathing Waters: Apply to Designate or de-Designate’ (13 May 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/bathing-waters-
apply-to-designate-or-de-designate> accessed 17 July 2024.
62 Environment Agency, ‘Swimfo: Find a Bathing Water’ (n 56).
66 Foundation for Environmental Education, ‘Blue Flag’ <www.blueflag.global> accessed 11 September 2024.
67 Keep Britain Tidy, ‘Blue Flag Award | Keep Britain Tidy’ <www.keepbritaintidy.org/blue-flag> accessed 11 September 2024.
2. The Bathing Water Regulations 29

30
3. The state of
bathing waters
31
3. The state of bathing waters
This chapter provides a brief overview of the state of bathing waters in England. We
highlight current performance and the challenges presented by changing trends in bathing.
The Bathing Waters Technical Report gives more detail on these issues.68
3.1 Dominance of coastal bathing sites in England

There are 451 bathing waters in England at the time of writing this report.69 Of these, 82%
(369) are coastal, 11% (50) are ‘transitional’ sites (such as on estuaries), while the remaining
7% (32) are inland at rivers and lakes. The locations of these bathing water sites are made
available by the EA at its ‘Swimfo’ website.70
Bathing waters in England are primarily coastal, reflecting the fact that these sites
historically have been the most popular for swimming and recreation. This trend is also
observed, though to a lesser extent, across many other countries in Europe, where a
significant proportion of bathing sites are coastal.71
Despite this, the 1976 and 2006 European Directives were always intended to protect the
public at both coastal and inland sites.72 As set out in the Bathing Waters Technical Report,
several EU Member States have very large numbers of inland bathing water sites. For
instance, Germany has over two thousand sites on lakes and rivers and France has over a
thousand.73 In comparison, the number of inland sites in England is low.
Similarly, the number of coastal sites identified as bathing waters in England is low when
considered against other figures. For instance, the independent UK ‘Beach Guide’ lists
828 beaches in England.74 This illustrates the relatively limited focus and application of the
current regulations compared to other information that people may consider when deciding
which sites to visit for bathing or other recreational activities.
3.2 Changing trends – increasing numbers of inland sites

With the increased popularity of ‘wild swimming’ and other open water recreational
activities across rivers in England,75 the number of applications for bathing waters at
inland locations has increased. In 2024 alone, twelve new river bathing water sites were
designated in England.76
A continued increase in applications for inland sites appears likely, although at the time of
writing the application process is closed, having been paused under the Sunak Government
in May 2024.77 An increase in inland bathing sites will present an important point for Defra
and the EA to consider, as bathing water sites on rivers may be exposed to sewage (both
68 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 20) s 3.
71 The European Environment Agency, ‘European Bathing Water Quality in 2023’ (28 May 2024) <www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
european-bathing-water-quality-in-2023/> accessed 5 July 2024.”
72 A fact underlined by the many entirely landlocked EU Member States, such as Austria, who have for decades applied the Bathing
Water Directives.
73 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 18) s 5.2.
74 The Beach Guide (n 19).
75 Outdoor Swimmer, ‘Trends in Outdoor Swimming 2023’ (Outdoor Swimmer Magazine, 1 February 2023) <outdoorswimmer.com/
featured/trends-in-outdoor-swimming-2023/> accessed 25 July 2024.
77 Defra, ‘Bathing Waters’ (n 60).
32 3. The state of bathing waters

treated and untreated), agricultural run-off, urban run-off and industrial pollution in ways that
may differ from those at coastal sites.
As explained in greater detail in the Bathing Waters Technical Report, coastal bathing water
quality based on the FIOs of concern is generally better than that of inland waters because
of the greater dispersion and dilution rates and more rapid bacteria decay. Moreover,
riverine sites tend to be more susceptible than coastal areas to short-term pollution caused
or affected by heavy rains or droughts.78
This means that there is the potential for the overall percentages of bathing waters meeting
the ‘excellent’, ‘good’ and ‘sufficient’ classifications in England to decrease if the number
of inland (in particular, riverine) bathing waters increases.79 This should not be taken as
an indication that standards of bathing water quality are declining, since it would actually
be a reflection of the changing mix and nature of designated bathing waters. Rather, it
illustrates the need to use statistics in this area with care. It also highlights the challenges
of communicating in a way that is both clear and simple while allowing these important
contextual points to be understood.
3.3 Status of bathing waters in England

The most recent bathing water quality figures, from 2023, showed 66.4% of bathing waters
(281 sites) in England at ‘excellent’ status. This is the lowest percentage since 2017.80
The 2023 figures also show 4.3% of bathing waters (18 sites) rated as ‘poor’. This marks
the biggest proportion of failure to meet the minimum legal standards since the four-tier
classification system was introduced in 2015. We discuss the classification system further in
Chapter 5 (Section 5.1) of this report.
Table 3.1 below shows the trends in the classification of English bathing waters since 2015.
There were no classifications in 2020 due to the Covid pandemic.
Table 3.1. Bathing water classification results in England from 2015 to 2023 (Source: based
on data from Defra, 2024) 81
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2022 2023
Number of
bathing waters 415 413 413 420 420 417 419 423
assessed
264 287 271 282 302 295 302 281
Excellent
63.6% 69.5% 65.6% 67.1% 71.9% 70.7% 72.1% 66.4%
110 98 109 106 90 100 87 99
Good
26.5% 23.7% 26.4% 25.2% 21.4% 24.0% 20.8% 23.4%
29 22 26 23 21 18 18 25
Sufficient
7.0% 5.3% 6.3% 5.5% 5.0% 4.3% 4.3% 5.9%
12 6 7 9 7 4 12 18
Poor
2.9% 1.5% 1.7% 2.1% 1.7% 1.0% 2.9% 4.3%
79 ibid.
80 Defra, ‘2023 Statistics on English Coastal and Inland Bathing Waters’ (n 20).
81 ibid.
3. The state of bathing waters 33

3.4 England’s bathing water quality compared to other UK
administrations
Table 3.2 below shows that England has proportionally more bathing water sites (4.3%,
18 out of 423 sites) that do not meet the minimum legal requirements compared to the rest
of the UK (3.8% or 1 out of 26 sites in Northern Ireland, 2.3% or 2 out of 89 sites in Scotland
and 1.8% or 2 out of 109 sites in Wales).
England also has proportionally fewer bathing waters (66.4%) achieving ‘excellent’
classification compared to Wales (73.4%) and Northern Ireland (69.2%). Greater population
density in England, among other differences, is likely to be a factor here, since it will create
generally larger sewage loads. However, it is clearly not the only factor. This is illustrated
by the fact that Scotland has a lower proportion of ‘excellent’ bathing waters despite also
having the lowest population density in the UK.
Table 3.2. Bathing water quality across the UK (Source: based on data from Defra, DAERA,
SEPA, and NRW)
England82 Northern Scotland84 Wales85
Ireland83
Number of bathing
423 26 89 109
waters assessed
281 18 38 80
Excellent
66.4% 69.2% 42.7% 73.4%
99 6 37 20
Good
23.4% 23.1% 41.8% 18.3%
25 1 12 7
Sufficient
5.9% 3.8% 13.5% 6.4%
18 1 2 2
Poor
4.3% 3.8% 2.3% 1.8%
3.5 England’s bathing water quality compared to EU Member

States
In our review of the implementation of the WFD Regulations and River Basin Management
Planning in England, the OEP observed that England was among the lower performers in
the percentage of surface water bodies achieving good ecological status or potential.86 As
shown in Figure 3.1 below, this trend appears to be repeated when it comes to the quality
of bathing waters. In 2023, 85.4% of bathing waters across the EU as a whole achieved
82 Defra, ‘Bathing Water Quality Statistics’ (n 48).

83 DAERA, ‘Northern Ireland Bathing Water Quality 2023’ (2023) <www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/bathing-water-quality> accessed 19 July
2024. Note that Northern Ireland has both ‘official’ bathing waters and ‘candidate’ sites. The latter are those identified for inclusion
on the statutory list of bathing waters subject to consultation with the bathing water operator. Table 3.2 only reflects the figures for
the ‘official’ bathing waters. See our separate report on the bathing waters in Northern Ireland for more information.
84 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, ‘98% of Scottish Bathing Waters Continue to Meet Strict Environmental Standards’
(21 November 2023) <beta.sepa.scot/news/2023/98-of-scottish-bathing-waters-continue-to-meet-strict-environmental-standards/>
85 Natural Resources Wales, ‘Bathing Water Quality – Wales’ (18 June 2024) <naturalresources.wales/evidence-and-data/research-and-
reports/water-reports/bathing-water-quality/> accessed 1 September 2024.
Management Planning in England’ (n 6) 59.
34 3. The state of bathing waters

‘excellent’ status, with only 1.5% of sites failing to achieve the minimum ‘sufficient’ legal
standard.87 As detailed above, England’s overall performance was significantly lower.
High intensive land-use in England, such as urbanisation and agriculture, combined with
variable weather patterns, might partially explain this discrepancy. Nevertheless, it is notable
that, at a headline level, England’s results in achieving ‘excellent’ bathing water quality
status exceed those of only three EU Member States – Poland, Hungary and Estonia.88 This
suggests the potential to achieve better outcomes in England with the necessary political
will, technical measures and investments.
At the same time, any comparison of bathing water results from one country to another
needs to be treated with a degree of caution. As discussed previously, for example,
different administrations will face different pressures, land use, weather, climate and other
factors. The scope to achieve improvements at bathing waters may therefore vary. There
may also be variations in the approach to identification of bathing waters, which may affect
the likelihood of them meeting the standards.
Chapter 5 of the Bathing Waters Technical Report further explores the reasons behind the
differences in these figures across Europe. Amongst other things, the report highlights
the importance of ultraviolet disinfection at wastewater treatment plants to reduce micro-
organisms and pathogens in untreated or partially treated urban wastewater.89
Figure 3.1. Proportion of bathing waters with excellent quality in selected European
countries in 2023 (Source: based on data from the European Environment Agency, 2024) 90
97.6
96.9
96.7
95.8
94.8
100%
94.0
92.0
90.3
90.3
89.3
88.2
87.6
87.2
86.2
85.4
90%
78.7
79.1
Percentage achieving ‘Excellent Status’
77.0
74.9
80%
74.6
74.5
73.4
72.9
72.3
71.9
69.2
70.0
67.7
66.4
66.2
70% 62.5
57.6
60% 54.9
50%
42.7
41.2
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Romania
Northern Ireland*
Belgium
England
Estonia
Hungary
Northern Ireland**
Poland
Scotland
Cyprus
Austria
Croatia
Spain
Greece
Bulgaria
Denmark
Malta
Germany
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Finland
Portugal
EU Average
Czechia
Wales
Slovenia
Ireland
France
Latvia
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
Slovakia
Albania
* Northern Ireland, officially identified sites only.

** Northern Ireland, officially identified sites and candidate sites combined.
87 The European Environment Agency (n 71).

89 ibid s 5.6.
3. The state of bathing waters 35

36
4. Underlying principles
of the Bathing Water
Regulations
37
4. Underlying principles of the Bathing
Water Regulations
This chapter looks at selected issues concerned with the current wording and practical
implementation of certain guiding principles that underpin the Bathing Water Regulations. It
considers, in turn:
z The focus of the regulations on ‘bathers’ (Section 4.1)
z The operation of the regime around a specified ‘bathing season’ (Section 4.2)
z How bathing waters are identified (Section 4.3).
4.1 Who the regulations are intended to protect – the meaning

of ‘bathers’
4.1.1 Introduction
This section looks at who the Bathing Water Regulations are designed to protect through
their reference to ‘bathers’ (the actual term used in the Bathing Water Regulations is...
‘surface waters...at which the Secretary of State expects a large number of people to
bathe’).91 This is considered in relation to the regime’s objective of ‘protecting human health
and facilitating recreational use of natural waters’.92 It also relates to the identification of
‘bathing waters’ (Section 4.3) and their classification standards (Chapter 5, Section 5.1).
4.1.2 The current position

The regulations are based around the notions of ‘bathers’, ‘bathing’ and ‘bathing waters’.
As noted above, the Secretary of State’s duty under the Regulations is to identify and
maintain a list of surface waters where the Secretary of State ‘expects a large number
of people to bathe’. A ‘bathing water’ is an area of surface water identified under the
regulations at which permanent advice against bathing is not in place.93 The terms ‘bathers’
and ‘bathing’ are not defined in the regulations, however, or in supporting documents.94 95
In its practical application of the regulations to date, a ‘bather’ in this context has been
considered by Defra to mean a swimmer. This is also supported to some degree by
guidance from the European Commission under the Bathing Water Directive, as we
discuss below.
This interpretation has the effect of excluding other water users from consideration. This
is reflected in Defra’s guidance which states that the proponents of applications to identify
bathing waters should ‘count the number of people bathing’ and should ‘not include other
water users such as paddleboarders or kayakers’.96

92 Defra and Environment Agency, ‘Glossary of Bathing Water Quality Terms’ (2024) <environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/profiles/help-
glossary.html> accessed 2 July 2024.
94 Defra, ‘Designate a Bathing Water: Guidance on How to Apply’ (n 12).
95 Defra and Environment Agency (n 92).
38 4. Underlying principles of the Bathing Water Regulations

4.1.3 Discussion
The exclusion of other water users from the interpretation of ‘bather’ to date has been
a cause of concern and comment, including from stakeholders in this project. This is
discussed further in the Bathing Waters Technical Report.97
A wide range of other recreational water users, may also be exposed to pathogens in water.
They include surfers, windsurfers, paddleboarders, anglers and people who take part in
various forms of boating, rowing and sailing. However, they are not currently considered in
identifying bathing waters.
Some of these other water users, such as surfers, will be fully immersed at times, with
similar exposure to pathogens as swimmers. There is some evidence that immersion
from such activities (and particularly ‘impact immersion’ such as falling off a surfboard)
may present higher risk factors for exposure to water-borne pathogens compared with
swimming at the surface.98 99 Despite this, surfers have always been excluded from
consideration in the identification of bathing waters in England.
Other users, such as paddleboarders, may not have an intention to swim, but will
necessarily need to do so if they fall in the water. This will not be an unusual occurrence. It
is also unclear if paddling in shallow water, for example by small children, should be viewed
as ‘bathing’. Defra has confirmed to us in this project that paddling is not currently viewed
as swimming under its application of the regulations. Again, however, there will be risks
of exposure.
As a result, an area with significant recreational use by people who could be harmed by
exposure to polluted water may not qualify as a ‘bathing water’ under the regime. This will
depend, among other factors, on whether enough of those people swim (see Section 4.3),
regardless of other recreational uses and their risks of exposure.
This issue was also considered by the European Commission in a 2002 Explanatory
Memorandum on the Directive.100 This stated that:
‘The 1976 Directive’s main aim was improving water quality and thereby protecting the
health of citizens who use natural water bodies for bathing. At that time, bathing meant
mainly swimming. During the past 25 years, a lot of social and technical changes have
occurred. New water activities like surfing, wind-surfing, kayaking, etc. have developed.
In all these activities, falling into the water, submerging and swallowing of water is
commonplace. This also applies for canoeing and kayaking on fresh waters, especially
when the sport is practised in a family context, i.e. by non experienced users, as water
contact and immersion are rather likely.’
98 Anne FC Leonard and others, ‘Human Recreational Exposure to Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria in Coastal Bathing Waters’ (2015) 82
Environment International 92.
99 Jack Schijven and Ana Maria de Roda Husman, ‘A Survey of Diving Behavior and Accidental Water Ingestion among Dutch
Occupational and Sport Divers to Assess the Risk of Infection with Waterborne Pathogenic Microorganisms’ (2006) 114 Environmental
Health Perspectives 712.
100 European Commission, ‘Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2002)581 – Quality of Bathing Water’ (2002) <www.eumonitor.
eu/9353000/1/j4nvhdfdk3hydzq_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vi8rm2zhs5zz> accessed 3 July 2024.
4. Underlying principles of the Bathing Water Regulations 39

Despite this, the Commission went on to take the view that ‘it would not be appropriate
to include the new recreational uses of water in the definition of bathing waters as to do
so would oblige Member States to significantly increase the extent, both physically and
temporally, of water quality protection, monitoring and management obligations.’ It was
therefore left as a choice for Member States, rather than an obligation.
Since then, trends in increasing and more diverse recreational water use have continued.
This was recognised by Defra when it announced its intention under the previous
administration to ‘seek public and stakeholder views on extending the definition of ‘bathers’
to include a wider range of water users in addition to swimmers – such as rowers, kayakers
and paddleboarders.’101
A wider interpretation of ‘bather’ might attempt to cover not just people who go into the
water for the express purpose of swimming, but also those whose water sports or use
of recreational waters result in their swimming or immersion in the water at least part of
the time.
Such a wider interpretation could then reasonably include surfers and paddleboarders,
for example. Arguably, this would be a more purposeful interpretation to better reflect
the regime’s objective of ‘protecting human health and facilitating recreational use of
natural waters’.102
Regardless of how the term ‘bather’ is interpreted, where an area is identified as a ‘bathing
water’, any action taken to ensure it meets the appropriate standards or to report its water
quality will support the protection of all users, and not just swimmers. Indeed, the standards
of protection appropriate for swimmers may be higher than those for some others, such as
rowers or anglers, who may be subject to less risk under normal conditions.
This highlights the possibility that an area of water might not be suitable for swimming (for
example, for safety reasons) but could be suitable for other recreational activities (such as
kayaking or rowing) that still carry some risk of exposure to pathogens.
Authorities in other parts of the world approach this issue through setting different
water quality standards for the management of ‘recreational waters’ rather than just a
single set of standards for ‘bathing waters’.103 Examples include different water quality
standards for immersive and non-immersive recreational use in the USA, or ‘primary
contact’ (full immersion activities such as bathing) versus ‘secondary contact’ activities (like
paddleboarding or kayaking on the surface) in Japan.
4.1.4 Our view

We recognise that Defra’s current interpretation of ‘bathing’ to mean swimming reflects
what it is widely understood to mean in practice. However, we consider this a limited
interpretation which overlooks the wider objectives of protecting human health and
facilitating the recreational use of natural waters.
It is arguable that a broader interpretation could reasonably cover a wider body of people
who may be immersed in water and need to swim from time to time. This is especially the
case for individuals who are likely to be subject to full and regular immersion in the water,
such as surfers.
102 Defra and Environment Agency (n 92).
103 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 18) ch 6.

Our view, therefore, is that the interpretation of ‘bather’ as applied under the current
regulations should include people who will, or reasonably may need to, swim periodically.
This would include, for example, surfers and paddleboarders, consistent with the regime’s
intended objectives. This is not dependent on any change in the regulations but rather is a
definitional and interpretative choice for ministers when designating bathing waters.
We note in this regard that an interpretation that is ‘mainly’ limited to swimmers appears to
have been supported by the European Commission.104 However, this seems to have been
based on the procedural and economic consequences for Member States of taking account
of others such as surfers, paddleboarders and windsurfers, rather than what the Bathing
Water Directive states.
On the other hand, we also recognise that the Bathing Water Regulations (and the Directive
from which they were originally derived), are unclear on this point, with no clear definition.
This inevitably leaves applicants and decision-makers with some ambiguity or uncertainty as
to what constitutes ‘bathing’.
More broadly, we consider that the focus of the regulations on ‘bathing’ reflects a view of
the recreational use of waters which was common in the 1970s, when the regime originated,
but is now out of date. The legislation has not kept pace with recreational trends such
as surfing and paddleboarding. Its provisions therefore now appear out of step with its
objectives of protecting human health and facilitating the recreational use of waters. From
a practical perspective, for example, it makes little sense that other activities which see
people regularly immersed are excluded from consideration when it comes to designating
bathing waters.
Our view is that the existence of a wide range of other users being exposed to the same
water periodically raises questions for Defra about how to apply the duty to ‘maintain’ a list
of bathing waters where the Secretary of State expects a large number of people to bathe,
and for the EA on how to update the profile of each bathing water.
Given the current misalignment between the regulations’ objectives and their provisions,
we would support a review on the possibility of applying the regime beyond ‘bathers’. We
suggest that such a review should include consideration not just of rowers, kayakers and
paddleboarders (as identified by Defra under the previous administration), but also other
recreational water users such as paddlers, anglers, surfers, windsurfers and kite surfers, and
people who take part in various other forms of boating and sailing, all of whom may be at
some risk from pollution.
We further suggest that any such review should consider not just such different groups of
recreational water users, but also their different likelihoods, means and levels of exposure
to pathogens and of resulting harm. For instance, some users will face risks of exposure
from swallowing water when they are immersed. Others may be exposed via aerosols or
water drops while they remain above the water surface.
Government may also wish to consider further the issues and merits of ‘recreational water
management’, as seen in other parts of the world. This could provide a broader approach
to protecting and informing different users of water based on their likely exposure to
pathogens and risk of illness.
Any such re-appraisal could have the aim of supporting raised standards overall. We
also recognise that any extension of the regime beyond ‘bathing’ could entail additional
104 European Commission, ‘Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2002)581 – Quality of Bathing Water’ (n 100).

costs of implementation as well as societal and environmental benefits. These will be for
Government to consider as part of any review.
Recommendation 1. We recommend that, in applying its duty to review the Bathing

Water Regulations, and in considering what is meant by waters ‘at which the Secretary
of State expects a large number of people to bathe’, Defra should consider whether
wider categories of water users need now to be taken into account, given the purpose
of protecting human health. To this end, we recommend that Defra consider not just
those people whose express intention is to swim, but also those who would normally or
frequently expect to be immersed (such as surfers) as well as other recreational users
who may be exposed to polluted water from ‘bathing’ from time to time.
4.2 When the regulations provide protection – the bathing season
4.2.1 Introduction
This section considers when the Bathing Water Regulations serve to protect bathers. It
looks at the ‘bathing water season’ and the resulting impacts on the identification and
prevention of pollution instances and provision of information to the public.

In England, the ‘bathing season’ is defined in the regulations to begin on 15 May and end
on 30 September each year.105 The dates of the bathing season determine when the public
are provided with most protection and information concerning the risks associated with
polluted bathing waters. Specifically, the regulations state that the first sample for every
bathing water should be taken shortly before the season commences and that monitoring
should then continue at intervals not exceeding one month throughout the season.106 This is
discussed further in Chapter 5 (Section 5.2).
During the bathing season, the EA evaluates bathing water quality by measuring levels of
E. coli and IE. The values recorded inevitably will fluctuate based on a variety of factors,
such as the weather, diffuse pollution from agricultural and urban sources, sewage
treatment works’ discharges and stormwater overflows. The overall classification of a
bathing water site is determined by the readings collected over the past four bathing
seasons. Again, this is discussed further in Chapter 5 (Section 5.1).
Based on the monitoring outcomes, the regulations state that adequate measures should
be taken to prevent bathers’ exposure to pollution.107 This can require that measures be
put in place to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the causes of pollution. It can also require the
provision of clear guidance advising against bathing at the site at a particular time.
The same provisions for monitoring and reporting on water quality do not exist outside
of the bathing season. Consequently, the opportunities to identify and rectify causes of
pollution are reduced, and the public does not benefit from the same level of information (if
any) if they use those waters outside of the defined season.

106 Sched. 4, para. 3, Bathing Water Regulations.

4.2.3 Discussion
For many years, concerns have persisted that the current bathing water season does not
align with modern usage patterns, potentially restricting the public health benefits intended
by the Bathing Water Regulations. In 2013, Defra conducted a public consultation on this
issue.108 In response to that consultation, 430 out of 630 respondents (72.4%) supported
extending the bathing season. Defra stated that the consultation findings would be
‘considered and included in an Impact Assessment concerning any changes to the bathing
season’, on which the department committed to a further consultation.109 Despite this, no
changes to the length of the bathing water season have been forthcoming in the 11 years
that have passed since that time. Defra has confirmed to us that there has also been no
further consultation during this period.
4.2.4 Our view

The current ‘bathing season’ is written into the law. Implementation of this aspect of the
regulations appears to be happening in accordance with those provisions.
As with the term ‘bathers’ discussed in the previous section, the legal specification of a
fixed ‘bathing season’ that is identical for every bathing site across the country seems to
originate from the 1970s, when the initial focus of the bathing water regime was on summer
bathing. Again, that approach no longer appears to reflect current practices where many
people bathe or undertake other recreational activities, such as surfing, over longer periods
and sometimes year-round.
We therefore consider that this aspect of the current regulations is inflexible and out of step
with how people now use the water environment. It may affect the ability of the regime to
achieve its intended objectives by not assessing or reporting on water quality at other times
when people continue to bathe.
An approach to bathing seasons that better reflects public usage could therefore better
protect public health in accordance with the regime’s objectives. We note that this has
been stated as an intention under previous administrations for over a decade but has not
yet happened.
We recognise that lengthening the bathing season inevitably would raise several related
issues. These would need to be considered as part of any review of this matter to ensure
the regime’s overall effectiveness and coherence.
Firstly, altering the bathing season would affect the cost of monitoring and reporting by
the EA and local authorities. As we note elsewhere (see Section 5.2) the EA is already
constrained in terms of its available resources for implementing the regime. Any change of
approach will need to be adequately resourced to be successful.
Expanding the bathing season into the autumn and winter months would also require
assessment of wider issues including associated mitigation and remediation costs, and
their affordability. For instance, it would be necessary to consider how best to approach
the impact of changes in agricultural and urban run-off and combined sewer overflow
activations resulting from different patterns of rainfall during this time.
108 Defra, ‘Consultation Outcome Length of Bathing Season in England 2013’ (2013) <www.gov.uk/government/consultations/length-of-
bathing-season-in-england> accessed 9 November 2023.
109 ibid.

A further point of consideration would be the effects of changes in daylight length and
intensity, as well as water temperature. These will affect the persistence of bacteria and the
associated need for wastewater treatment to meet the relevant standards. Climate change
will have an impact on these matters, raising the question for Government of how best to
make the regime ‘future-proofed’ to allow for further adjustment as appropriate.
Whether it would be feasible and practical for various bathing water sites, both coastal and
inland, to meet the existing water quality standards over an extended period (potentially
year-round) would require detailed analysis. There is a risk that extending the bathing
season would lead to more bathing waters failing to meet the standards, with little realistic
prospect of achieving compliance within the relevant periods, thereby leading to their
declassification (see Section 6.3).This would not be desirable.
A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to this challenge is not necessarily required. It is not simply

a choice between all bathing waters having a season of 15 May to 30 September, or the
whole year, or something else. For example, the current season could be maintained as
a minimum, with scope to extend the season where there is sufficient use over a longer
period. Defra could therefore consider a range of options if it reviews this aspect of
the regulations.
As a point of comparison, the equivalent legislation in Scotland does not operate with
a fixed bathing season. Rather, it leaves this as a discretionary matter for ministers to
determine the season individually for each bathing water, as ‘the period during which large
number of bathers are expected there’.110
We suggest, additionally, that it would be sensible for any reconsideration of the ‘bathing
season’ to proceed in alignment with any parallel reconsideration of the current coverage of
‘bathers’, as discussed in the previous section of this report, and of the criteria for identifying
bathing waters as discussed in the next section. Levels of use of water bodies throughout
the year may vary considerably between different water bodies and between different
activities, such as swimming or paddleboarding at inland or coastal waters or surfing in the
sea. The impact on wider related issues such as signage and communication (see Section
5.3) will also need to be assessed.
Recommendation 2. In any review of the regime, we recommend that Defra consider

options to expand the bathing water season to better match the actual usage of bathing
waters by significant numbers of people. This could include considering the possible use
of different season lengths at different locations.
4.3 Identifying bathing waters
4.3.1 Introduction
This section looks at how bathing waters are currently identified or ‘designated’ in England.
We consider Defra’s application guidelines in relation to bather numbers and other matters.
We also reflect on recent issues of clarity and transparency identified within the bathing
water application process. Further, we discuss the annual nature of the bathing water
application process with reference to alternative approaches in other jurisdictions that
provide for a ‘pre-identification’ process.
110 Reg 3(3)(b), the Bathing Waters (Scotland) Regulations 2008, Scottish Statutory Instrument 2008 No. 170.

The Bathing Water Regulations require the Secretary of State to ‘identify, and maintain a list
of, the surface waters in England […] at which the Secretary of State expects a large number
of people to bathe, having regard in particular to past trends and any infrastructure or
facilities provided, or other measures taken, to promote bathing at those waters.’111
Defra has produced guidance that sets out the approach for the Secretary of State to
identify bathing waters and how proponents should make the case for them.112 At the time
of this report, however, Defra’s website states that: ‘The Bathing Water Regulations and
application guidance are currently being revised. During this time, Defra is not accepting
applications for a bathing water designation’. It adds that: ‘We expect to begin accepting
applications again in spring 2025.’
This statement from Defra was made on 13 May 2024. The general election was called nine
days later. Since then, statements of previous government policy on bathing waters have
been amended with the statement that: ‘This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak
Conservative government’.113 The intentions of the current Government as regards bathing
waters have not yet been confirmed. In the meantime, the process for new bathing water
applications remains closed.
Elements of Defra’s bathing water application guidance were a source of stakeholder

concern following updates made in July 2023. A particular point of contention was that the
changes in July 2023 were made without any prior consultation, despite the requirement in
the regulations for the Secretary of State to ‘encourage public participation’ and to ensure
that the public has an opportunity ‘to submit suggestions, comments or complaints’.114
Stakeholders also queried several technical points in the guidance which we consider in the
discussion below.
4.3.3 Discussion
With the 2023 amendments, the guidance specifies that a proposed bathing water must
have at least 100 bathers a day during the ‘bathing season’ (15 May to 30 September – see
Section 4.2). The guidance also introduced the requirement for any prospective bathing
water to have toilet facilities that bathers can use during the bathing season, within a short
distance of ‘up to about 500m from the site’. It also states that bathing water application
surveys (to count the number of bathers) should not take place on the same day as a
festival or other organised event.115
Numbers of bathers
The change in the guidance to mandate that bathing water applications need to evidence
100 bathers per day prompted concern from many stakeholders. Specifically, the guidance
states that: ‘For a site to be eligible for designation, it must be used by an average of at
least 100 bathers a day during the bathing season’.


Some stakeholders have queried why a body of water commonly frequented by, say, 40-50
bathers might no longer warrant bathing water status.116 Others have expressed concern,
suggesting that changes were designed to make it harder for groups to apply, given the
statutory obligation to monitor and report on pollution issues at bathing sites.117
Requirement for toilet facilities

Defra updated the bathing water application guidelines in July 2023 to include a
requirement for toilet facilities up to 500 metres from the proposed site.118 This is not an
explicit requirement of the regulations but rather is considered to relate to the provision
in the regulations which refers to ‘having regard in particular to past trends and any
infrastructure or facilities provided’ in identifying bathing waters.
While the desirability of such facilities is understandable, some stakeholders have

expressed concern that this may result in popular areas for swimming or other recreation
not being granted bathing water status on grounds related exclusively to a lack of
toilet facilities.119
The current provision for toilet facilities is expressed as a limiting requirement in the Defra
guidance. That is to say, it introduces an additional criterion on top of the expectation of
a large number of bathers. The guidance is also written in a way that suggests that the
toilet facilities must already be there for a proposed bathing water to be considered for
designation, rather than potentially being added should the site be designated.
Organised event days

Stakeholders also expressed concern at the decision to prevent applications from including
bather number surveys that were conducted during organised events, such as swimming
regattas. This is seen as excluding from consideration the participants of such events as
people who may be exposed to health risks.120
The Bathing Waters Technical report highlights alternative approaches to this issue that
are followed in different jurisdictions. For instance, France has adopted a tiered approach
that provides for certain bathing sites to be granted status as ‘organised bathing waters’,
allowing them to be recognised for their specific usage patterns while still adhering to
water quality standards. The Bathing Waters Technical Report provides more information
on this topic.121 This approach ensures that public health is protected at sites that host
organised events.
Clarity of process
The timing of the changes made to the bathing water application process in July 2023
was disappointing to some stakeholders, not least because they were introduced mid-
way into the 2024 bathing water application cycle. This was during the period in which
116 Adam Vaughan and Verena Müller, ‘Environment Officials “Moved Goalposts” over River Bathing’ (15 July 2024) <www.thetimes.com/
uk/science/article/government-moving-the-goalposts-over-river-bathing-area-rules-clean-it-up-b7kr8gcp2> accessed 15 July 2024.
117 Charlie Jones, ‘River Stour Swimmers Criticise Bathing Water Rule Changes’ (BBC News, 4 August 2023) <www.bbc.com/news/uk-
england-essex-66395219> accessed 16 July 2024.
119 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 18) 45.
120 See for example: Thames21, ‘Defra Rejects Henley-on-Thames’ Mill Meadows Application for Bathing Water Status’ (27 February
2024) <www.thames21.org.uk/2024/02/defra-rejects-henley-on-thames-mill-meadows-application-for-bathing-water-status/>

some applications were in preparation. It meant, for example, that user counts had to
be repeated against the new criteria, and that some prospective sites with applications
in progress ceased to be eligible.122 123 124 This speaks to a broader issue identified by
some stakeholders of a perceived lack of clarity and transparency in the bathing water
designation process as it operated prior to its suspension in May 2024.
The issue of clarity is discussed further in the Bathing Waters Technical Report. It includes
the specific point of how Defra might calculate the ‘average number of bathers’ at a site
despite having specified that surveys should be conducted ‘during weekends, bank
holidays, and school holidays, when the site is at its busiest.’125
A further issue concerning clarity of process relates to the presentation of reasons when
applications for designation of bathing waters are unsuccessful. In previous designation
cycles, some applications have been rejected with Defra not stating the reasons for
those decisions. This has led to frustration on the part of applicants for these sites as well
legal commentary suggesting that Defra’s failure to provide reasons for the dismissed
applications could be vulnerable to legal challenge.126 127
Annual cycle of applications

In England, bathing water applications are normally considered on an annual basis,
although as noted above the process is currently paused. This can mean that potentially
suitable bathing sites are identified at a time that is not aligned well with the corresponding
scope for measures to improve water quality, including through water industry investments.
This can lead to newly designated bathing waters initially being classed as ‘poor’, with the
risk that a continuing classification at this level will lead to their declassification. We discuss
this further in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3).
The Bathing Waters Technical Report considers a number of differing approaches to

identifying and designating bathing waters in different jurisdictions.128 Aspects of these have
the potential to alleviate some of the issues highlighted above. One such approach is the
‘pre-application process’ followed in Germany.129
By way of explanation, the ‘pre-identification’ process in Germany ensures that issues

related to access, planning and facilities, as well as investigations and works to maintain or
improve water quality, are addressed before formal identification. These steps can lead to
the early identification and mitigation of potential pollution sources, better management of
surrounding land use, and enhanced public amenities. This helps to ensure that once a site
is designated, it already meets high standards of water quality.
By ‘investigating first, then deciding on status’, the approach in Germany has been praised
for enabling authorities to proactively address water quality, planning, and access issues
122 Vaughan and Müller (n 116).

123 Kate Rew, ‘Bathing Water Designation for Local Swim Spots?’ (Outdoor Swimming Society, 8 February 2021) <www.
outdoorswimmingsociety.com/should-swimmers-seek-bathing-water-designation-for-local-swim-spots/> accessed 12 August 2024.
124 Lucie Heath, ‘Cumbria and Cornwall to Miss out on Clean River Bathing Spaces Following New Defra Rules’ (inews.co.uk, 23 October
2023) <inews.co.uk/news/cumbria-and-cornwall-to-miss-out-on-clean-river-bathing-spaces-following-new-defra-rules-2705184>
accessed 12 August 2024.
126 Sarah Knox-Brown, ‘Dismissed Bathing Water Applications “Lacked Reasons”’ (23 March 2023) <www.richardbuxton.co.uk/news/
dismissed-bathing-water-applications-lacked-reasons/> accessed 17 July 2024.
127 Sandra Laville, ‘Local Groups Denied Access to Reasons for Refusal of English River Bathing Areas’ The Guardian (6 April 2023)
<www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/06/england-river-bathing-area-applications-foi-requests> accessed 15 July 2024.
128 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 20) s 5, 6.
129 ibid 5.3.

for potential bathing waters.130 Germany also has both larger numbers of bathing waters
and better levels of water quality than England. In 2023, Germany had 2,291 bathing
waters (of which 1,929 were inland). Across all of these bathing waters, 90.3% were
‘excellent’, 5.9% were ‘good’, 1.6% were ‘sufficient’ and 0.3% were ‘poor’ (with the remaining
1.8% unclassified).131
In England, on the other hand, designation is often viewed as a means to strengthen

authorities’ obligations to improve water quality. Additional steps prior to designation
could be of concern to some stakeholders who may fear that potential bathing sites will be
dismissed before achieving bathing water status, or that a pre-identification process could
be unnecessarily prolonged or create further barriers to designation.
4.3.4 Our view

We note that the determination of what constitutes a ‘large number of bathers’, as provided
for in the regulations, is a subjective matter to be determined by ministers at their discretion.
However, the current requirement of the guidance in England for an average of at least 100
bathers a day across the entire bathing season appears to be relatively restrictive and rigid
when compared against the criteria applied elsewhere, as outlined in the paragraphs below.
We note that this reflects a relatively recent change in guidance. Its full effects on the
number of applications submitted or sites designated may not yet be known. There is a risk,
however, that it will create a barrier to submitting applications compared to the practice that
preceded it.
In contrast, Northern Ireland asks for evidence of at least 45 bathers on one occasion or
100 ‘beach users’ on two occasions.132 Wales does not set a minimum threshold but rather
asks applicants to provide information on the numbers of swimmers, paddlers and other
beach users.133
Scotland, in contrast, applies a higher figure of 150 bathers.134 However, this is expressed in
more general and flexible terms than the English threshold. The Scottish criteria state that:
‘Generally around 150 people per day using the water for bathing regularly throughout the
season would likely be considered a ‘large’ number of bathers; however Scottish Ministers
have discretion as to what would be a large number and could in some circumstances
designate a bathing water where fewer than 150 bathers are expected per day.’ This
replaced a previous requirement for 150 bathers without such flexibility, following a request
for this change by Environmental Standards Scotland.135
We also consider that a flexible approach may be more appropriate than using a single
numerical minimum threshold on bather numbers, which may unnecessarily constrain the
discretion of decision-makers when designating bathing waters. We suggest that this should
be revisited alongside any parallel assessments of applying the regime beyond ‘bathers’
and extending the ‘bathing season’.
130 ibid 5.2.

132 DAERA, ‘About Bathing Water Quality’ (9 September 2015) <www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/bathing-water-quality> accessed 4 July
2024.
133 Welsh Government, ‘Designation and De-Designation of Bathing Waters: Application Form’ (15 February 2023) <www.gov.wales/
designation-and-de-designation-bathing-waters-application-form> accessed 2 August 2024.
134 SEPA, ‘Bathing Waters | Designation’ (2024) <https://bathingwaters.sepa.scot/designation/> accessed 1 August 2024.
135 Environmental Standards Scotland, ‘Designation of Bathing Water Sites in Scotland Summary Report’ (4 December 2023) <https://
environmentalstandards.scot/our-work/our-investigation-reports/designation-of-bathing-water-sites-in-scotland/> accessed 1 August
2024.

In broad terms, the question of whether it is appropriate to identify a bathing water should
reflect consideration of who the regime is trying to protect and over what period. This will
also give rise to consideration of issues of cost and practicality.
We also question the current approach which excludes consideration of the number of
bathers when waters are used for organised events. From a human health perspective and
to facilitate recreational use, the logic of such an approach is questionable.
We recognise that some events may be ‘one-offs’, and that it could be unhelpful to use
them to identify regular or average levels of water use if they are not expected to happen
again, or have been established purely as a mechanism to meet the criteria for the number
of bathers. However, apart from such cases, our view is that regularly scheduled event
days should not be excluded in their entirety from bathing water applications. Disregarding
instances where levels of exposure via bathing may be highest, and which are reasonably
expected to recur as legitimate, organised events, does not seem an effective way to
protect people as intended. It also arguably operates counter to the requirement in the
regulations for the Secretary of State to have regard to ‘measures taken, to promote bathing
at those waters’.
We understand that the requirement for toilet facilities in the guidance relates to the
provision in the regulations for the Secretary of State to identify areas where a large
number of people are expected to bathe ‘having regard in particular to past trends and any
infrastructure or facilities provided’.
In our view, this wording in the regulations can be read as suggesting that the presence of
toilet facilities or other infrastructure (such as changing rooms, pontoons, etc.) can be used
to help establish whether large numbers of people can be expected to bathe. However,
we consider it questionable whether the absence of such infrastructure automatically can
or should be said to create the opposite expectation. This is especially so if, as a matter
of demonstrable fact, large numbers of people clearly do bathe in practice. We therefore
suggest that Defra may wish to reconsider this aspect of the guidance.
The principal test is whether large numbers of people are expected to (or in fact do) bathe,
which should be informed rather than constrained by infrastructure considerations. We also
highlight the possibility for any necessary infrastructure to be put in place if a bathing water
is designated, rather than always having to be in place beforehand.
Further, the OEP considers that transparency surrounding the outcome of bathing water
applications could be improved. There is evidence136 that proponents of unsuccessful
bathing water applications have not been given information to explain the rationale for
denied applications in recent years. This seems to work against the basic principles of
good governance, transparency and authorities setting out the reasons for their decisions.
It could frustrate the objectives of the regime to protect human health, if decisions and
the justifications for them are not open to scrutiny. It also denies people the information
that might help them consider whether to re-apply, or that might inform applications in
other areas.
A ‘pre-identification’ process, along the lines of that applied in Germany, could be worthy
of further exploration as part of any review of the bathing water identification process in
England. This might provide for improved understanding of poor water quality, and the
possibilities and means to address it, prior to designation. Such an approach could also
reduce the risk of sites being declassified owing to underlying sources of pollution that may
136 Laville (n 127).

take several years to rectify. To be effective in supporting the regime’s objectives, any such
process should create, and be seen to provide, effective means to work towards bathing
water status and standards rather than creating new barriers to these outcomes.
Recommendation 3. We recommend that Defra revise the current bathing water

identification criteria to better reflect the provisions of the regulations and the protection
intended to be provided where large numbers of people are expected to bathe. To this
end, we recommend that Defra base its identification of bathing waters on a properly
representative assessment of current use and necessary protection of human health
rather than fixed numbers of bathers or infrastructure. We also recommend reconsidering
the current exclusion of higher levels of use of waters during organised events.
Recommendation 4. We recommend that all material proposals for changes to the
bathing water identification criteria and process should be subject to public consultation
before they are finalised. Where applications are rejected, Defra should provide a
statement of the reasons for the rejection as a matter of routine in the interests of
transparency and good governance.
Recommendation 5. We recommend that any review of the Bathing Water Regulations
by Defra should include further consideration of whether a structured and transparent
pre-identification process, such as that operating in Germany, might be beneficial.

5. Classification,
monitoring and reporting
of bathing water quality
51
5. Classification, monitoring and reporting of
bathing water quality
This chapter looks at selected issues concerned with technical elements of the Bathing
Water Regulations. It considers, in turn:
z The classification system for bathing waters (Section 5.1)
z Monitoring practices for bathing waters (Section 5.2)
z How bathing water quality information is provided to the public (Section 5.3).
5.1 Classification of bathing waters

This section discusses the method used to classify bathing areas, including differences
between coastal waters and inland sites.
5.1.1 Current position

As outlined in Chapter 2, the Bathing Water Regulations provide for bathing waters to be
classified as ‘poor’, ‘sufficient’, ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. The classification system is based on
measurements of FIO concentrations, namely those of IE and E. coli.
Samples are collected and collated across each bathing season. This provides a basis to
classify the bathing water for the results over the whole of that season. The EA publishes
the results of the annual classifications, as well as individual monitoring samples that
contribute to them, on its ‘Swimfo’ website.137
The overall, longer-term classification for each bathing water, as published by Defra, works
on a rolling, four-year period. It is therefore based on the combination of the results for the
most recent season and the previous three seasons.138
Classification standards
Table 5.1 shows the classification standards in the regulations. They vary according to
whether the site is inland or coastal (including ‘transitional’ waters, such as in estuaries).
A bathing water is classified as ‘poor’ if it fails to meet the standards specified for ‘sufficient’.

138 Defra, ‘Bathing Water Quality Statistics’ (n 48).
52 5. Classification, monitoring and reporting of bathing water quality

Table 5.1. Classification standards for bathing waters (colony forming units in 100ml water)
Parameter Excellent Good Sufficient
Inland Waters
Intestinal enterococci 200(*) 400(*) 330(**)
Escherichia coli 500(*) 1000(*) 900(**)
Coastal Waters
Intestinal enterococci 100(*) 200(*) 185(**)
Escherichia coli 250(*) 500(*) 500(**)
Note that the standards for ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ marked with (*) are based on a
95-percentile evaluation. Those for ‘sufficient’ (**) are based on a 90-percentile evaluation.
As explained further below, this is why the numerical figures for ‘sufficient’ are higher than
those for ‘good’.
The classification system is based on ‘95-percentile’ and ‘90-percentile’ evaluations as

shown in the table. In simple terms, a ‘percentile’ can be thought of as a value that ‘X%’
of measured values (in these cases 95% or 90%) must fall below for the standard to be
met. This is calculated based on the overall distribution of the data rather than the simple
number of samples that fall above or below the specified figure. This means, for instance,
that one or two significantly high values out of 20 could preclude a bathing water from
achieving one of the 95- or 90-percentile classification standards respectively.
As a specific example, in order to be classed as ‘excellent’ the results of samples at an

inland site must be such that their overall distribution will have 95% of values with no more
than 200 ‘colony forming units’ of IE and 500 colony forming units of E. coli in 100 millilitres
of water. A ‘colony forming unit’ is a unit of measurement for the bacteria IE and E. coli.
The ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ classifications are based on 95 percentile evaluations, whereas
‘sufficient’ reflects a 90-percentile evaluation. This explains why the figures for ‘sufficient’
look, at first sight and in purely numerical terms, to be more stringent than those for
‘good’. This is because a bathing water could be classified as ‘sufficient’ when a larger
number of samples exceed the standard for that classification, compared to the number of
exceedances that would enable a site to be classified as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.
It is also notable that the specified levels of bacteria for the different classifications at
inland sites are greater than those for coastal waters. For example, levels of bacteria that
would lead to an inland bathing water being judged as ‘excellent’ would only lead to a
classification of ‘good’ on the coast. The levels for an inland site to be ‘good’, meanwhile,
might lead a coastal water to be ‘poor’.
Predicting water quality and disregarding samples

Bathing waters are affected by natural factors such as rain, tides, wind and sunlight. The
EA has told us that where it can find a meaningful relationship between these factors and
FIOs, it seeks to make a daily forecast of their effects and issue advice against bathing
as appropriate.
When there is heavy rain, for example, reduced water quality is more likely for certain
bathing waters. This is because heavy rain can wash pollutants from agricultural land
5. Classification, monitoring and reporting of bathing water quality 53

and urban areas into designated bathing areas, as well as sewage being spilled by the
operation of sewer overflows. 139
The EA has a prediction model and will issue these predictions of likely poor water quality
using the online ‘Swimfo’ service so that bathers can see the pollution risk forecasts. This
practice of issuing these alerts associated with poor weather or other factors is set out in
the regulations and followed in similar ways across Europe.
Such a modelled forecast is not the same as an actual pollution incident that has been
confirmed by sample analysis. As set out in the Bathing Water Regulations,140 when the
EA has issued an alert and declared a ‘short term pollution’ event, providing systems are
in place to warn the public, samples taken during this period can be discounted from the
classification process outlined above.
These situations are defined in the regulations as ‘short term pollution’ events. Up to 15%
of such samples used in the classification data may be removed over the four-year period
(but not more than one per season).141 This is the maximum level of discounting allowed
under the regulations. The EA has told us that this amount of discounting is rarely reached
in practice, however, and that just over 1% of samples were discounted in 2023 due to short
term pollution. This discounting assessment is made at the end of each monitoring season.
The EA has also explained the practice of discounting, stating that ‘this is because
a warning against swimming has been issued in advance and the conditions are not
considered to be reflective of the actual water quality most people bathe in.’ It also
says that ‘disregarding samples in this way means the classification assessment will be
representative of normal conditions that bathers are likely to encounter.’142 If these samples
were included, the overall classification would likely be lower.
5.1.2 Discussion
With the exception of 2020 during the Covid pandemic, our assessment is that the EA has
undertaken the monitoring required under the Bathing Water Regulations and produced a
classification for each identified bathing water.
As noted above, the current classification system uses both 95 and 90 percentile
evaluations. During discussion with stakeholders, it was evident that this system can be
confusing and difficult to understand. It was suggested by some stakeholders that, in
order to make the system clearer, it would be beneficial to use just one approach, with the
preference being 95-percentile evaluation. This has also been recommended by the World
Health Organization (WHO).143
A further point of discussion is the apparently less stringent classification values for
freshwater sites compared to coastal sites. The science here is complex, and the evidence
limited. In addition, the origins of the different standards in the EU Bathing Water Directive
are difficult to trace. The EA has suggested that they reflect an effort that was made at EU
level to reconcile different epidemiological studies carried out at coastal sites in the UK and
lakes in Germany.
139 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 17) s 3.8
142 Environment Agency, ‘Bathing Water Classifications and Short-Term Pollution’ (23 February 2024) <https://environmentagency.blog.
gov.uk/2024/02/23/bathing-water-classifications-and-short-term-pollution/> accessed 18 July 2024.
Parameters for Bathing Water Quality in the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)’ (n 21) 43.

The WHO refers to evidence that gastrointestinal illness occurs at a higher rate in seawater
swimmers than in freshwater swimmers at a given level of FIOs.144 However, the WHO also
suggests that this difference in gastrointestinal illness rates may be due to the more rapid
rate of FIO die-off than that of actual pathogens in seawater compared to freshwater.145 This
could mean that there are more pathogens in marine waters than in fresh waters at the
same FIO bacterial levels.
Overall, the WHO recommends that freshwater values should be the same as those for
coastal sites and that the classification values are changed to reflect a more health-based
outcome.146
On the matter of excluding samples, some stakeholders have expressed the view that
this relates to a lack of transparency and even ‘massaging’ the classification figures. It
is, however, provided for in the regulations and appears to be applied in accordance
with them.
5.1.3 Our View

Our assessment is that it would be beneficial for the public to understand why values in
freshwater locations can have higher concentrations of FIOs than saline waters. There
are also questions over the extent to which such different standards can be justified, with
only limited information currently available in this area. We do not have a specific view
or expertise on this technical issue but simply note that the current position is difficult
to understand, with the current standards in the Bathing Water Regulations and the
EU Directive from which they originate being at odds with the approach recommended
by the WHO.
In any review of the current regulations and standards, therefore, it may be beneficial
to revisit this topic. We note in this regard that the standards are set for the purposes of
protecting human health. This suggests that any such review should be undertaken not just
by Defra, but also with the appropriate involvement of DHSC and the UKHSA, for example
through incorporating insights from ongoing and future research.
Further to this, a single method of evaluation would provide a more consistent and
understandable classification system. We consider that using only 95 percentile values, as
recommended by the WHO, would allow for a simpler system of bathing water data analysis
and greater transparency. We note that if the standards for ‘sufficient’ were to be based
on 95-percentile evaluation, the corresponding IE and E. coli values would need to be
adjusted accordingly.
As regards the approach of disregarding samples, this is provided for in the regulations and
has some basis in logic, as explained by the EA. At the same time, it is misunderstood or
mistrusted by some stakeholders. Discounting up to 15% of samples, although provided for
in the regulations, also allows for a relatively large proportion of the samples measured to
be disapplied (although in practice this does not usually happen). In addition, it means that
annual and overall bathing water assessments may only provide a picture of when the ‘best’
(or at least not the ‘worst’) water quality is expected.
144 World Health Organization, ‘Guidelines for Safe Recreational Environments Addendum to Volume 1 – List of Agreed Updates’ <www.
who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HSE-WSH-10.04> accessed 1 August 2024.
145 World Health Organization, ‘Guidelines on Recreational Water Quality: Volume 1 Coastal and Fresh Waters’ 15 <www.who.int/
publications/i/item/9789240031302> accessed 1 August 2024.
146 ibid.

There would be nothing to stop, for example, the EA and Defra from assessing and
presenting the bathing water classifications for a site in two ways, both including and
excluding these data associated with short term pollution.
On the one hand, this would provide greater information on the extent to which the
exclusion of data affects the results. It would also provide a comparison between the
assessed state of the bathing water including versus excluding those conditions when there
is advice against bathing in place.
On the other hand, we recognise that it could be confusing to have two different
classifications for the same bathing water. This appears largely to be a communications
issue for Defra and the EA to consider, in order to achieve the best balance between
providing information that is clear and useful to bathers and stakeholders and avoiding
misunderstandings and mistrust.
Recommendation 6. We recommend that, in any review of the regulations, Defra

consider: a) the potential benefits of using 95 percentile evaluation for all classifications
as suggested by the WHO; and b) the approach to disregarding samples, to ensure
stakeholders understand what is being done and why and to make best use of the data
collected. We also recommend that, in any such review, Defra, with input from DHSC
and the UKHSA as appropriate, consider further the justification behind the different
standards for inland and coastal bathing waters.
5.2 Monitoring of bathing waters

This section looks at the monitoring programme currently used to evaluate bathing waters.
It considers the parameters used in this assessment, sample numbers and sample locations.
5.2.1 Current position

Sampling point location
The Bathing Water Directive states that sampling should be undertaken at one single
defined location within the bathing water area.147 This should be at a location within the
bathing water area where most bathers are expected, or the greatest risk of pollution is
expected, according to the bathing water profile.
The Bathing Water Regulations reflect one of these options, stating that a single monitoring
point should be located where most bathers are expected.148 They do not require or provide
for the sampling location to be placed in the area which has the greatest risk of pollution.
They also do not have provision for more than one sampling point at a designated area.
Sample numbers
There are variations in the number of bathing water samples to be taken across the
different UK administrations. Table 5.2 below illustrates these.
147 Art 3, Bathing Water Directive.

148 Sched. 4, para 1(a), Bathing Water Regulations.

Table 5.2. Differences in bathing water sampling frequency in the UK149
England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales
Bathing Defined per bathing
Water 15 May – 30 September 1 June – 15 September water. Typically, 1 June – 15 May – 30 September
Season 15 September
Minimum of 1 pre-season,
with 4 bathing season
Minimum of 1 pre-season, Minimum of 1 pre-season, samples taken at intervals not Minimum of 1 pre-season,
Bacterial exceeding one month (total 5)
with bathing season with 4 bathing season with bathing season
Sampling
samples taken at intervals samples taken at intervals Where bathing season samples taken at intervals
Programme
not exceeding one month not exceeding one month does not exceed 8 weeks a not exceeding one month
(Statutory)
(total 5).150 (total 5).151 minimum of 3 bathing season (total 5).153
samples must be taken
5. Classification, monitoring and reporting of bathing water quality
(total 4).152
Most bathing waters are
sampled 18 times including
Minimum of 10 samples
Bacterial pre-season sample. Some
per bathing season Between 10 and 16 samples
Sampling 16 to 20 bathing season geographically remote sites
(including pre-season per bathing season
Programme samples plus one pre- are sampled 10 times. Sites
sample) depending on (including pre-season
(Normal season sample.155 which have consistently
the consistency of the sample).157
Practice) demonstrated ‘excellent’
classification.154
water quality are sampled five
times.156
150 Sched. 4 para 2. Bathing Water Regulations.
151 Sched. 3 para 2. Quality of Bathing Water (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008.
152 Sched. 2 para 2. Bathing Water (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
153 Sched. 4 para 2. Bathing Water Regulations.
154 Done at the discretion of the Environment Agency. For more information refer to Chapter 3.5.
155 20 samples were collected at each site in 2022 – DAERA, ‘Northern Ireland’s Bathing Waters Show Overall Improvement in 2022’ (DAERA, 8 December 2022) <www.daera-ni.gov.uk/news/northern-
irelands-bathing-waters-show-overall-improvement-2022> accessed 1 September 2024.
156 SEPA, ‘Scotland’s Bathing Waters’ (2024) <https://bathingwaters.sepa.scot/> accessed 4 July 2024.
57
157 Natural Resources Wales (n 85)

Prior to 2017, all designated bathing waters in England were monitored on 20 occasions
during the bathing season. From 2017 until 2022, if an area was found to attain a ‘good’
or ‘excellent’ classification it was judged by the EA as low risk and therefore the sampling
regime was altered, such that the site might only have been sampled five times during
the season.158
The EA has told us that this minimum figure of five samples was increased in 2022, leading
to the present levels of 10-20 samples for each site. The current minimum sampling rate
in England is therefore lower than the normal sampling levels in Northern Ireland and
Scotland, and the same as the normal minimum in Wales.
Assessment of bacterial parameters

All samples collected under the Bathing Water Regulations must be analysed for levels
of E. coli and IE. These tests are carried out in accordance with protocols defined within
the regulations.159
Methods used in analysing bathing water samples are traditionally culture-based. Due
to this, bacterial growth is required for measurement, and it can take up to 24 hours of
incubation to get an E. coli result and up to 72 hours for a confirmed IE result. These time
periods, required for analysis, can delay alerting the public to pollution incidents. At present,
no reliable real-time analysis is available for this type of test160 although there are pilot
programmes underway.161
Additional parameters
In addition to sampling for FIOs, the EA must carry out visual inspections for waste,
including tarry residues, glass, plastic or rubber. These must be carried out at a frequency
which will allow adequate management measures to be put in place.162
The presence or absence of macro-algae or marine phytoplankton is considered under the

regulations during the creation of the bathing water profile. This information is not used
within the annual classification. However, if there is the potential for a large accumulation of
macro-algae or marine phytoplankton, investigations and monitoring must be carried out.163
At present there are no standard limits for macro-algae or marine phytoplankton in

bathing water. However, the WFD Regulations do consider them to an extent through a
eutrophication assessment.
Cyanobacteria (sometimes referred to as ‘blue-green algae’) is not currently included as part

of the bathing water classification calculations. However, there is a requirement within the
Bathing Water Regulations to include management measures when blooms are considered
unacceptable or pose a risk to public health.164
159 Sched. 4, Bathing Water Regulations.
161 The Environment Agency, ‘Review: Approaches to Monitoring and Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Bathing Waters’ <www.
gov.uk/government/publications/review-approaches-to-monitoring-and-surveillance-of-antimicrobial-resistance-in-bathing-waters>
162 Sched. 4, Bathing Water Regulations.
163 Sched. 4, part 3, Bathing Water Regulations.
164 Sched. 4, part 5 (12)(3), Bathing Water Regulations.

Currently in England, the presence of cyanobacteria has been deemed low risk at coastal
bathing waters. It is assessed at all inland sites and signs advising against bathing are put in
place if a bloom is visible and suspected or found to be toxic.165
Emerging monitoring opportunities

With a changing environment, pressures, societal expectations and activities, and
developments in scientific knowledge, the need to keep regulatory requirements and
practices under review is ever-present. The following paragraphs present a brief discussion
on three further monitoring topics, which are also discussed in more detail in the Bathing
Waters Technical Report.166
Microbial source tracking (MST) is an approach that can be used to ascertain the origin of
faecal contamination, for example if the original source is human or from livestock. The EA
has no legal obligation to carry out MST analysis but is using it as an investigative tool. We
support this activity. The further development of MST, and possibly its use in routine testing,
could improve the ability to provide greater certainty within source apportionment studies.
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is the ability of microorganisms to become increasingly

resistant to antimicrobial agents, such as medical antibiotics. AMR testing is not a
requirement of the Bathing Water Regulations. However, it has been highlighted elsewhere
as an emerging issue.167
There are mixed views on this topic. The European Commission stated in 2017 that: ‘The
development and spread of AMR in the environment is also a growing concern, requiring
further research.’168 Conversely, the WHO in 2018 advised that ‘bathing waters are not
thought to be a major route of transmission for antimicrobial resistant microorganisms
and environmental surveillance techniques are not currently sufficiently advanced for
obligatory monitoring.’169
Testing for viruses within bathing water samples was a requirement of the original
Bathing Water Regulations.170 However, the requirement to test was removed when these
regulations were repealed and replaced. The analysis of viruses in environmental waters
is particularly difficult, which is why microbial indicators are used due their relative ease
of analysis.171
With recent breakthroughs in laboratory methods, viruses have been suggested as an

alternative indicator of faecal contamination, as discussed in the Bathing Waters Technical
Report.172 However, the WHO has stated ‘that there is currently insufficient evidence to
support a regulatory role’.173
166 ibid 3.
167 See for example: The Royal Academy of Engineering, ‘Testing the Waters: Priorities for Mitigating Health Risks from Wastewater
Pollution’ (2024) <https://nepc.raeng.org.uk/media/qi2eyivp/testing-the-waters-priorities-for-mitigating-health-risks-from-wastewater-
pollution.pdf> accessed 9 July 2024.
168 European Commission, ‘EU Action on Antimicrobial Resistance’ (28 May 2024) <https://health.ec.europa.eu/antimicrobial-resistance/
eu-action-antimicrobial-resistance_en> accessed 11 September 2024.
Parameters for Bathing Water Quality in the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)’ (n 21).
170 Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991, Statutory Instrument 1991 No. 1597.
172 ibid 3.

5.2.2 Discussion
The location and number of sample points has been raised as a point of concern by
stakeholders in this project. Sample points are chosen by the EA in accordance with
the regulations, which state that the sampling location is to be where most bathers are
expected. Stakeholder concerns were primarily focused on the fact that this provision of the
regulations, does not necessarily reflect the area of greatest potential risk of pollution.174
This could be, for example, downstream of a source of pollution or close to the mouth
of a river where there may still be significant numbers of bathers (or other recreational
water users).
With regard to freshwater sites, some stakeholders raised concerns that sampling points
are being placed at the outer end of the designated area, and so possibly the furthest
point from a potential pollution source. This has included concerns that sample points
may not be representative of the entire area due to the dynamic nature of river pollution.
Local hydrological conditions are important in considering the appropriate location of a
monitoring site.
The EA has confirmed to us that sampling points on rivers are located downstream of
the designated bathing water area. It has said that this means the sample taken will be
representative of water that has passed through the entire bathing water area and by all
bathers there, and will not miss any pollution inputs.
Currently, bathing waters have only one sampling location, in accordance with the
regulations. In some cases, the bathing area identified may be up to two kilometres long.
Taking into account the dynamic nature of water flows and the possible presence of
multiple sources of pollution along a stretch of river or coast, a single point is unlikely to be
representative of conditions across the entire designated area.
The number of samples used for a classification can have an important impact on the
confidence of that classification. The WHO in 2018 suggested that using only 16 samples
would lead to the wrong classification in 12-20% of cases, which would reduce to a 5%
chance of misclassification with 80 samples.175 It recommends a minimum of 20 samples
per site per season, with the overall classification over the four years being based on
at least 80 samples per site. Extending the bathing water season further may require
additional sampling.
The current FIOs measured (E. coli and IE), are supported by epidemiological studies
for their inclusion as water quality parameters.176 However, both tests are based on the
traditional culture methods and therefore are subject to a time delay for assessment
purposes. This approach can therefore only offer retrospective assessment of the water
quality at the time and point the sample was collected, with an inevitable time lag.
The Bathing Waters Technical Report considers this issue further. It suggests that, until near
real time monitoring becomes available and reliable, predictive water quality modelling
offers the only option for effective real time risk predictions allowing for mitigation measures
to be put in place in a timely manner.177
174 Sched. 4 (1), Bathing Water Regulations.

177 ibid s 3.6.

We also discuss this issue further in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3), in relation to the possibility of
improving alignment in implementing the Bathing Water Regulations and the Urban Waste
Water Treatment Regulations. This may allow storm overflow event duration monitoring data
to be better used in bathing water pollution prediction and forecasting tools.
5.2.3 Our View

Our assessment is that the authorities in England are performing what is required of them
by the current regulations in respect of monitoring. However, if Defra decides to review the
current regime, we suggest it would be beneficial to revisit the monitoring provisions to
ensure the appropriate protection of health and public awareness.
As regards the location and number of sampling points, our view is that the currently fixed,
‘one-size fits-all’ approach in the regulations appears inflexible and may not provide for a
representative assessment of water quality or health risks, especially at larger sites over
their entire length. The equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland, in contrast, allows a choice
between the location where most people are expected to bathe and the point where the
greatest risk of pollution is expected.178
Defra and the EA may wish to reconsider the location and number of sampling points
alongside related questions concerning the number of samples to be taken and how
information on these matters is communicated to the public. As highlighted by the WHO, we
have some concern that the current approach involves a risk of misclassification by taking
numbers of samples below those recommended by the WHO.
On the other hand, we recognise that there is a cost to monitoring and support the
application of risk-based sampling. This means decisions on what is to be monitored, where
and how will need to take account of resources as well as practical issues.
We note in this context that the EA has previously identified resource constraints affecting
its bathing water sampling as well as wider water quality monitoring. The EA has also stated
that the resources needed for taking and assessing bathing water quality samples are
relatively larger than those for some other water quality parameters due to the processes
involved.179 It is therefore important that EA has the resources needed to undertake the
required level of monitoring for the regime.
Our assessment also highlights the need for further research into new and emerging
techniques to assess FIOs with nearer real-time applications. We note, additionally, that
the rise in applications for inland bathing waters and the increased popularity of swimming
in freshwater environments suggests a need to increase attention on the presence of
cyanobacteria blooms. Monitoring and warnings do happen in practice, as has been
illustrated in specific instances.180 The EA has also told us that if a visual presence of
cyanobacteria is observed then local authorities are notified to take appropriate actions. At
present, however, there is no consistent approach to monitoring of this issue for England,
which we consider would be desirable.
178 Sched. 3, The Quality of Bathing Water Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008, Statutory Rule 2008 No. 231.
179 ‘Oral Evidence: The Environmental Protection Work of the Environment Agency, HC 702’ <https://committees.parliament.uk/
oralevidence/14718/pdf/>.
180 See for example: Vicky Castle and Chris Caulfield, ‘Surrey Swimmers Warned after Suspected Blue-Green Algae Outbreak’ (BBC
News, 18 July 2024) <www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98qepw8qrno> accessed 19 July 2024.

that Defra and the EA consider the scope and options to update the monitoring and
sampling regime. We recommend that this should include considering the potential to: a)
take a more flexible approach to determining the most representative sampling locations;
b) increase the number of sample points on long stretches of identified areas; c) develop
proposals for the consistent monitoring of and response to cyanobacteria blooms; and d)
provide increased transparency and explanation of monitoring decisions so that people
understand what is being done, when, how and why.
5.3 Reporting and communication issues

In this section we consider how effectively the status of bathing water quality is conveyed to
the public in accordance with the regulations and whether improvements might be made to
enable the public to make more informed decisions about when and where to bathe.

During the bathing season, every local authority controlling a bathing water site must
actively disseminate: the bathing water’s current classification; any advice against bathing;
a general description of the bathing water in non-technical language; information on the
nature and expected duration of abnormal situations (such as heavy rainfall or pollution
events); and an indication of the sources of more complete information.181 The regulations
establish that the appropriate media and technologies must be used when disseminating
this information.182
In practice, information on the quality of bathing waters is made available online via the
EA’s ‘Swimfo’ website,183 with local councils providing signs at bathing water locations with
information on water quality issues for bathers during the bathing season.184 If a bathing
water is classified as ‘poor’, then a sign advising against bathing should be displayed.
However, this does not amount to prohibition and individuals may still bathe if they wish.
Moreover, the Secretary of State must publish annually details of the former bathing waters
at which permanent advice against bathing is in place.185
5.3.2 Discussion
Balancing long and short-term needs
There is a need to balance the long-term classification of bathing sites with the requirement
to provide accurate, up-to-date information to bathers. The bathing water classification
scheme provides a view of average bathing water quality over the long term, which may
be different from actual water quality at any particular point in time. As outlined in Section
5.1, the overall classification for each bathing water works on a rolling, four-year period by
combining the results for the most recent season and the previous three seasons. Within
this period, of course, there may be considerable variability in the results from one sample
to another.

184 Defra, ‘Bathing Water Information and Signage Rules for Local Councils’ <www.gov.uk/guidance/bathing-water-information-and-
signage-rules-for-local-councils> accessed 22 July 2024.

This approach stems from the EU Bathing Water Directive and was intended to ‘provide a
meaningful picture of bathing water quality over the long term’ and to ‘properly assess the
progress achieved through the implementation of certain management measures set out
in the Bathing Water Directive’.186 It therefore supports the assessment of progress made
through management measures in the Bathing Water Regulations and other legislation,
including the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations and the WFD Regulations.
While this process is valuable for assessing general water management trends, the focus
of the information is inherently retrospective. It is therefore of less use to bathers who are
actively trying to determine when and where it is safe to bathe and need the most recent
information to do so.
Event duration monitoring and the provision of real time risk information
The physical collection of samples and laboratory analysis are currently the only accurate
ways of assessing E. coli and IE.187 Despite this, predictive models and the use of artificial
intelligence allowing for the identification of short-term pollution risk do exist and are
improving.188 While the consistency and accuracy of such modelling can be problematic and
expensive, the Bathing Waters Technical Report describes how pollution risk forecasting
systems only need to predict the high values and periods of poor water quality.189
In this regard, the Bathing Waters Technical Report makes a case for improving the
alignment of implementation of the Bathing Water Regulations with that of the Urban Waste
Water Treatment Regulations, so that storm overflow event duration monitoring data can
be better used in bathing water pollution prediction and forecasting tools.190 While this
might not provide accurate real-time analysis of E. coli and IE levels, and will not capture
urban and rural diffuse pollution impacts that can be major sources of pollution at some
sites, it nevertheless could improve the reliability of real-time risk forecasting, which could
be of value to bathers. We further discuss issues concerning urban wastewater treatment,
including actions introduced under the Environment Act 2021 in relation to storm overflows
and event duration monitoring, in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3) of this report.
To date, pollution risk forecasting has only been undertaken for coastal bathing water
sites in England. The EA has explained to us that this is because it has based its warning
standards on the WHO model which only defines risk with levels of IE in seawater. It said
that, with relatively few inland sites until recent years, all of high quality, this was not really
an issue.
However, the EA has also told us that it recognises that things have changed with the
designation of river bathing waters, and recently commissioned a study to scope out what
the equivalent standards should be for freshwaters. This concluded that there were no
ready-made equivalent standards for risk in freshwaters that the EA could use for pollution
risk forecasting. The EA has said that it will now review this in combination with work on the
practical aspects of modelling inland water quality variations to determine how to proceed.

188 Linda Geddes, ‘Real-Time Water Quality Monitors Installed at Wild Swimming Spots in Southern England’ The Guardian (21 July
2024) <www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/21/real-time-water-quality-monitors-installed-at-wild-swimming-spots-in-
southern-england> accessed 21 July 2024.
190 ibid.

Availability of signage
Stakeholders voiced concern to the OEP that a ‘poor’ rating for bathing waters only requires
a notice on the standard fixed sign. This is despite many bathing waters having multiple
access points.
The provision of multiple signs covering all key access points to bathing waters is
considered in the Bathing Waters Technical Report.191 The report also indicates that
electronic bathing water signage systems, like those being tested in Northern Ireland, would
be preferable to standard fixed signs as they can be updated remotely and provide real-
time and auditable records.192
Quick response (QR) codes might offer a practical solution to some of the issues described
in the Bathing Waters Technical Report. Placing QR codes at all key access points would
allow visitors with mobile devices to access the most up-to-date water quality information.
For this to be most effective, it will be necessary to ensure that the linked information is
regularly updated and maintained. Additionally, options for offline access will still need to be
considered to account for areas with poor mobile network coverage, or people who do not
have the necessary mobile devices.
5.3.3 Our view

Communicating the risk of harm to the public from entering bathing waters is a key
component of the Bathing Water Regulations.
We recognise the importance of the current classification system and the function it serves
as an indicator of effectiveness of the implementation of broader water legislation, as
outlined above. However, we consider that improvements can be made to better ensure the
public are aware of their more immediate risks from bathing. We therefore suggest that any
review should consider how to improve this element of the regime. We also consider there
are opportunities to provide better information under the current regulations.
There is currently a gap in pollution risk forecasting in relation to inland sites. This will
become more significant if increased numbers of such sites are newly designated as
anticipated. It is therefore important that the EA continues to seek solutions to address
this issue.
We consider the information on the EA’s ’Swimfo’ website to be helpful. However, we have
observed that some information on the website is not always provided in an accessible
form. For example, charts detailing recent E. coli and IE samples are of limited value to
a non-scientist without a clear explanation as to the risk they represent. As such, we are
pleased to have been informed by the EA during this project that continued improvements
are to be made in that area.
We have observed that some non-governmental organisations, such as Surfers Against

Sewage193 and The Rivers Trust194 provide online data for bathers on matters such as tide
times, surf reports, water temperatures and river levels. Such platforms can also identify
storm overflow locations, offering guidance to the public to inform their decisions on
when and where to bathe. Defra and the EA may therefore wish to consider how such
191 ibid.
192 ibid 61.
193 Surfers Against Sewage, ‘Sewage Pollution Alerts’ <www.sas.org.uk/water-quality/sewage-pollution-alerts/> accessed 14 August
2024.
194 The Rivers Trust, ‘Sewage Map’ <https://theriverstrust.org/sewage-map> accessed 11 September 2024.

organisations might be consulted on the subject of effectively communicating information
that is of importance to bathers.
Recommendation 8. We recommend that Defra and the EA pursue the further

development of short-term pollution risk forecasting systems so health risks can be
better understood and communicated to the public with greater speed, including
for inland sites. While establishing accurate levels of E. coli and IE may for the time
being only be possible via laboratory analysis, event duration monitoring data offers
a near real-time indication of risk to harm at affected bathing sites. We therefore also
recommend that Defra and the EA consider how best to align implementation of the
Bathing Water Regulations with that of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations,
as well as the relevant provisions of the Environment Act 2021, so that event duration
monitoring data can be fed into pollution risk forecasting systems.
Recommendation 9. We recommend that any review of the regime include
consideration of options to improve the quality, clarity, and accessibility of bathing water
information. We suggest this could include online resources and improved use of social
media and QR codes as well as physical signs at bathing sites.

66
6. Interaction of the
Bathing Water Regulations
with other law and policy
67
6. Interaction of the Bathing Water
Regulations with other law and policy
This chapter looks at the application of the Bathing Water Regulations within a wider legal
and policy framework. It considers, in turn:
z The interaction of the Bathing Water Regulations with other water management
policies, including England’s current ‘Environmental Improvement Plan’195 and Defra’s
‘Plan for Water’196 (Section 6.1)
z How implementation issues in the WFD Regulations affect bathing water objectives
(Section 6.2)
z How water industry regulation and investment mechanisms affect bathing water
objectives (Section 6.3)
z How the Bathing Water Regulations interact with regulations concerned with protecting
the marine environment (Section 6.4)
z How certain local bye-laws can restrict bathing and other water activities, affecting
implementation of the regulations (Section 6.5).
6.1 The wider legal and policy framework

The regulations do not operate in isolation. They are part of a wider body of laws and
policies for the management, protection and improvement of the water environment.
Many elements of the current framework may be subject to review following the change of
government in July 2024.
The Environmental Improvement Plan

The Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to prepare an ‘Environmental
Improvement Plan’ (EIP). This is a plan for significantly improving the natural environment in
the period to which the plan relates.197
At the time of this report, the current statutory EIP is that adopted by the previous
Government in 2023 (‘EIP23’).198 This set out that administration’s goal of ‘clean and plentiful
water’, highlighting public expectations for better bathing waters and noting various
measures expected to support this outcome.199 These include action to reduce harm from
storm overflows, which we discuss further below (Section 6.3).
On 30 July 2024, the current Government announced its intention to undertake a review of
the EIP, to be completed by the end of the year.200 This is to develop a new, statutory plan to
protect and restore England’s natural environment, with delivery plans to meet each of the
Environment Act targets which we discuss below.

196 Defra, ‘Plan for Water: Our Integrated Plan for Delivering Clean and Plentiful Water’ (4 April 2023) <www.gov.uk/government/
publications/plan-for-water-our-integrated-plan-for-delivering-clean-and-plentiful-water/plan-for-water-our-integrated-plan-for-
delivering-clean-and-plentiful-water> accessed 9 November 2023.
197 S. 8, Environment Act 2021.
199 ibid 11, 111.
200 Defra, ‘Government Launches Rapid Review to Meet Environment Act Targets’ (n 22).
68 6. Interaction of the Bathing Water Regulations with other law and policy
The Environment Act targets
The previous Government set four legally binding water targets in 2023, under the
Environment Act 2021.201 These are to be met by 31 December 2038.202 They include the
target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from agricultural land by 40%.
Also in 2023, the previous Government set a legally binding marine target under the
Environment Act 2021 for the condition of protected features in relevant Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs). This target is that 70% of designated features in MPAs are in favourable
condition by 31 December 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition.203 MPAs
overlap significantly with bathing waters, as we discuss further in Section 6.3 below.
These targets are not specifically concerned with bathing waters and FIOs. However, the
measures needed to realise the targets may also contribute to improving the condition of
bathing waters.
The ‘Plan for Water’

Further to the EIP23, the previous Government additionally produced a non-statutory policy
paper, the ‘Plan for Water’.204 This plan outlines further actions to support the EIP23’s ‘clean
and plentiful water’ goal and the statutory targets set under Environment Act 2021.
As a non-statutory policy paper produced under a previous government administration, the

ongoing status of the Plan for Water is unclear. At the time of writing it remains on Defra’s
website, under the statement that ‘This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak
Conservative government.’
The current Government has not explicitly commented on the Plan for Water but has begun
to set its own priorities, including a commitment to review the EIP as noted above. The
Secretary of State also announced a series of initial steps towards reforming the water
sector on 11 July 2024. He said: ‘That change will take time. Over the coming weeks and
months, this Government will outline further steps to reform the water sector and restore
our rivers, lakes and seas to good health.’ 205
Among other points, the Plan for Water highlights the status of bathing waters as ‘protected
areas’ under the WFD Regulations.206 This is a matter of law rather than policy and is not
affected by the change of administration. As noted in a separate recent OEP report, the
implementation of these regulations also underpins the implementation of the EIP23
‘clean and plentiful water’ goal as well other objectives and commitments.207 We discuss
the relationship between the Bathing Water Regulations and the WFD Regulations in
this chapter.
201 S.1, Environment Act 2021.

202 The Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022.
203 The Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2023.
204 Defra, ‘Plan for Water’ (n 196).
205 Defra, ‘Government Announces First Steps to Reform Water Sector’ (11 July 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/news/government-
announces-first-steps-to-reform-water-sector> accessed 11 July 2024.
206 Defra, ‘Plan for Water’ (n 196) 12–13.
6. Interaction of the Bathing Water Regulations with other law and policy 69
Climate change
The issues surrounding climate change and bathing waters are extensively discussed
by the European Environment Agency in a 2020 report.208 In England, the third National
Adaptation Programme (NAP3),209 produced under the Climate Change Act 2008, identifies
meeting the objectives of the Bathing Water Regulations as a key action for meeting the
climate risk reduction goal to mitigate the impacts from a changing climate on water quality
and supplies to protect public health.
Interaction of the Bathing Water Regulations with other measures

The Bathing Waters Technical Report discusses issues of interaction with a broad range of
other laws and policies.210 We focus on four specific areas in more detail below: firstly, the
WFD Regulations; secondly, water industry regulation and investment mechanisms; thirdly,
the Marine Strategy Regulations;211 and fourthly, bye-laws that may restrict swimming or
other recreational activities.
6.2 The Water Framework Directive Regulations

The Bathing Water Regulations require the Secretary of State and the EA to exercise their
‘relevant functions’ to ensure that, from the end of 2015, all bathing waters are classified
as, at least, ‘sufficient’.212 ‘Relevant functions’ is defined to mean functions under other
legislation listed in a schedule to the WFD Regulations.213 This includes laws that apply to
drainage, waste management, sewage treatment and agriculture.
As a further and separate requirement, the Secretary of State and the EA must also
exercise their relevant functions ‘so as to take such realistic and proportionate measures
as they each consider appropriate with a view to increasing the number of bathing waters
classified […] as “good” or “excellent”’.214
Further, bathing waters have the status of ‘protected areas’ under the WFD Regulations.215
Protected areas must meet standards in the WFD Regulations and the law under which
the area is protected. These standards should be reflected in specific ‘Environmental
Objectives’ set for individual water bodies under the WFD Regulations, and then achieved
through ‘Programmes of Measures’. This also applies to other protected areas such as
‘shellfish waters’.
The EA has produced and the Secretary of State (under a previous administration) has
approved ‘River Basin Management Plans’ (RBMPs) under the WFD Regulations.216 These
set out the objectives for all water bodies and summarise measures to achieve them.
208 European Environment Agency, ‘Bathing Water Management in Europe: Successes and Challenges’ (2020) <www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/bathing-water-quality-2020> accessed 9 July 2024.
209 DEFRA, ‘Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3)’ (July 2023) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/third-national-adaptation-
programme-nap3> accessed 1 September 2024.
210 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 18) s 2.4, 3.7.
211 The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010, Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 1627.
213 Reg 5(2), Bathing Water Regulations and Sched. 2, WFD Regulations.
215 Reg 10(2)(b) WFD Regulations.
216 Environment Agency, ‘River Basin Management Plans: Updated 2022’ (22 December 2022) <www.gov.uk/guidance/river-basin-
management-plans-updated-2022> accessed 13 November 2023.
A further, specific provision of the WFD Regulations addresses the situation where
monitoring or other data indicates that the Environmental Objectives for a water body are
unlikely to be met. In this case, the Secretary of State and the EA must ensure that such
additional measures as may be necessary to achieve those objectives are included in the
programme of measures applying to that water body.217 This would be applicable where,
for example, information suggests that the minimum ‘sufficient’ standard or any higher
classification set as an objective for an individual bathing water is unlikely to be met.
6.2.2 Discussion
The OEP has recently reported separately and in detail on implementation of the WFD
Regulations. Our overall findings include that progress is not on track to meet the
Environmental Objectives set in the RBMPs, due to a range of factors including a lack of
specific and certain measures to achieve those objectives.218
The Secretary of State responded to our report on the WFD Regulations in September
2023.219 That response accepts the report’s key conclusions that not enough progress has
been made in improving the water environment due to a lack of investment and action.
The response also states that the Government will be carrying out a review of the water
sector regulatory system, with further details to be set out in the Autumn. It indicates that
recommendations on specific points in the OEP’s report on the WFD Regulations will be
considered in that review.
From our assessment, we judge that many of the issues that concern how the WFD
Regulations have been implemented will also apply specifically to bathing waters. For
example, while the RBMPs identify bathing waters as protected areas, they do not set out
site-specific information on measures to meet the applicable standards. Rather, information
regarding pollution sources and measures taken for individual bathing waters can be found
on the EA’s ‘Swimfo’ website220
During our engagement in this project, the EA has told us that Government policy is to seek
to bring bathing waters to a standard beyond ‘sufficient’ where possible. The EA illustrated
this by reference to water industry investments supported through the ‘Price Review’
process (see Section 6.3). The EA also told us that each bathing water has an objective
to prevent deterioration through the assessment against its baseline class. The EA said
that this allows sites where improvements have been made to maintain this as a new
quality objective.
Despite this, for all bathing waters the RBMPs only appear to state the Environmental
Objective to achieve ‘at least sufficient classification’.221 There are no instances that we can
see where the RBMPs set objectives to achieve better bathing water quality, despite the
duty in the Bathing Water Regulations to increase the number of ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ sites.
217 Reg 25, WFD Regulations.

219 Defra, ‘Government Response to OEP’s Report on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive Regulations and River Basin
Management Planning’ (11 September 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-oeps-report-on-the-
implementation-of-the-water-framework-directive-regulations-and-river-basin-management-planning> accessed 11 September 2024.
221 See for example: Environment Agency, ‘England | Catchment Data Explorer’ <https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/v/
c3-plan> accessed 5 December 2023.
The EA has produced a ‘Topic Action Plan’ alongside the RBMPs which discusses
challenges and actions associated with improving bathing water quality. 222 However, this is
only concerned with inland bathing sites and discusses actions in general terms rather than
by reference to specific areas. From the information in the RBMPs and related documents,
therefore, it is not possible to know what particular action will be taken when or where to
meet or improve bathing water quality standards.
6.2.3 Our view

The WFD Regulations create a central, integrated framework to protect and improve the
water environment, including bathing waters among other protected areas. Our report
on the WFD Regulations identifies several areas where we consider their implementation
needs to be improved.223 We do not repeat all of our findings and recommendations here
but rather make the additional observation that they will apply to bathing waters and other
protected areas as much as to other water bodies.
This means that the development of the Programmes of Measures to achieve Environmental
Objectives ought to include measures that will achieve the applicable objectives for
all bathing waters on a site-specific basis. This is not clear in the current Programmes
of Measures.
It is also not clear how including only the minimum, ‘at least sufficient’ objectives for bathing
waters in the RBMPs complies with the specific provisions in the Bathing Water Regulations
to increase the number of ‘good’ and ‘excellent’ sites. The RBMPs appear to overlook this
aspect of the Bathing Water Regulations, or at least do not clearly reflect it. This means
they do not currently provide a clear basis to deliver any such better standards, since it is
the RBMPs that set the objectives to be achieved for all water bodies and summarise the
Programmes of Measures that have been developed and should drive action to meet them.
Our view is that RBMPs should set objectives for bathing waters that are more ambitious
than ‘sufficient’ where appropriate. This should reflect a balanced assessment of the
practicality and realism (including consideration of the proportionality of costs) of achieving
those outcomes in accordance with the Bathing Water Regulations. In addition, Programmes
of Measures should contain specific, certain and time-bound measures that demonstrate
with sufficient certainty how and by when the appropriate standards (whether ‘sufficient’,
‘good’ or ‘excellent’ as the case may be) will be met at the individual bathing water
body level.
In view of the integrated nature of the WFD Regulations, the assessment of actions for
Programmes of Measures should consider their overall impacts. For example, measures
to protect and improve bathing waters could benefit water quality more generally or
other protected areas. There may be particular opportunities to link measures to protect
bathing and shellfish waters due to their geographical overlap in many cases,224 and shared
vulnerability to pollution.
This will therefore include measures to be applied in the water industry sector, which we
discuss further in Section 6.3 below. However, we have also noted in our report on the
222 Environment Agency, ‘River Basin Management Plans, Updated 2022: Summary Programmes of Measures – 5. Topic Action Plans’ s
5.8 <www.gov.uk/guidance/river-basin-management-plans-updated-2022-summary-programmes-of-measures/5-topic-action-plans>
accessed 16 November 2023.
224 Locations of bathing waters and shellfish waters can be seen on Defra’s ‘MAGIC’ mapping platform: https://magic.defra.gov.uk/home.
htm.
WFD Regulations that other major sources of pressure on the water environment, such as
agriculture and transport, are not currently receiving the same resources or attention as the
water industry sector. This means that overall, we do not yet see a picture of the necessary
resources being directed to all major pressures to meet the Environmental Objectives under
the WFD Regulations, which will include those applying to bathing waters.225
The Bathing Waters Technical Report similarly notes that, while agricultural run-off and
wastewater are the primary causes of bathing water pollution, other factors also need to be
addressed. These include urban run-off, foul-to-storm sewerage misconnections, and waste
from dogs, birds and other wildlife.226
Agriculture, in particular, is a further, significant source of pathogens and pollution that can
affect bathing waters and other protected areas and water bodies. For example, the EA has
undertaken testing and monitoring to help identify factors affecting the quality of England’s
first designated river bathing water, a stretch of the Wharfe at Cromwheel, Ilkley, in
Yorkshire.227 The EA has found that, while sewage inputs close to the site have a short-lived
impact on bathing water quality, the catchment-wide agricultural input from further upstream
leads to longer term high bacterial levels in the river.
The list of ‘relevant functions’ to be applied to meet Environmental Objectives for bathing
waters and other water bodies under the WFD Regulations does not include the so-called
‘Farming Rules for Water’.228 This is one of the main tools available to the EA to improve the
environmental performance of the agricultural sector. Although primarily focused on nutrient
management, if applied effectively some of the measures it provides for may also reduce
faecal pollution. The OEP has previously expressed concerns about how these rules are
being implemented and enforced.229
Recommendation 10. In their ongoing implementation of the WFD Regulations, including

addressing our earlier recommendations on this regime, we recommend that Defra and
the EA ensure that: a) the objectives set for bathing waters in RBMPs are sufficiently
ambitious and recognise the duty in Regulation 5(1)(b) of the Bathing Water Regulations
to aim for ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ where appropriate; b) those objectives are backed up by
clear, specific and time-bound measures to achieve them at the level of individual water
bodies; and c) the identification of those measures considers all relevant pressures,
including from agriculture and other sources as well as the water industry, and the
impacts for the water environment as a whole.
Management Planning in England’ (n 6) 11.
227 Environment Agency, ‘Working towards a Cleaner Wharfe – a Closer Look at Water Quality Testing at Ilkley’s Bathing Water’ (4 April
2024) <https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2024/04/04/working-towards-a-cleaner-wharfe-a-closer-look-at-water-quality-testing-
at-ilkleys-bathing-water/> accessed 11 July 2024.
228 The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018, Statutory Instrument 2018 No. 151.
229 Pippa Neil, ‘Government May Have Broken the Law over River Pollution, Says OEP’ (ENDS Report, 24 January 2024) <www.
endsreport.com/article/1858649/government-may-broken-law-river-pollution-says-oep> accessed 16 July 2024.
6.3 Water industry regulation and investment mechanisms

Many of the ‘relevant functions’ in the Bathing Water Regulations apply to the water
industry. These include the Water Industry Act 1991, the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Regulations and the Environmental Permitting Regulations.230
As further detailed in the Bathing Waters Technical Report, the Urban Waste Water
Treatment Regulations include two key aspects in relation to bathing waters.231 Firstly, many
of the measures required to meet the prescribed discharge limits for wastewater treatment
works will also reduce bacterial loads on the environment. Secondly, the regulations require
advanced treatment of wastewater, for example through ultraviolet disinfection, in places
with a population equivalent of 10,000 people in ‘sensitive areas’, which will include bathing
water sites.
The Bathing Waters Technical Report also discusses the Environmental Permitting
Regulations 2016.232 These provide a consolidated environmental permitting system across
the wastewater and other sectors (including intensive pig and poultry farming, for example).
They also make it a strict liability offence to misconnect foul sewerage into storm water
sewerage systems, a common source of pollution of bathing waters.
More broadly, major new environmental requirements for water companies are specified in
the ‘Water Industry National Environment Programme’ (WINEP) which is developed by water
companies in conjunction with the EA. This is a programme of actions that water companies
undertake to improve the environment, reflecting obligations arising from environmental
legislation including the WFD, Urban Waste Water Treatment and Bathing Water
Regulations. It is also an important input to the five-year water industry ‘Asset Management
Period’ cycle and ‘Price Review’ led by Ofwat. This is the process through which Ofwat
determines the funding that water companies will have to complete the agreed WINEP, and
the impact on water customer prices. The Bathing Waters Technical Report provides further
discussion of the role of WINEP in relation to bathing waters.233
As a specific requirement of the Water Industry Act 1991 as amended by the Environment
Act 2021, the previous Government published a ‘Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction
Plan’ in 2023, in response to widespread concerns about pollution from combined sewer
overflows.234 As with the EIP23 and the Plan for Water, the intentions of the current
Government as regards the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan have yet to be
confirmed. It remains on Defra’s website with the statement that: ‘This was published
under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government’ (although the current plan was
updated in 2023).
The Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan notes that: ‘Bathers and other water users
are impacted by the 8% of storm overflows that discharge near a designated bathing
water.’235 It also sets out the intention that: ‘By 2035, water companies will have improved all
storm overflows discharging near every designated bathing water’.236 The specific target is
230 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, Statutory Instrument 2016 No. 1154.
232 ibid 15–16, 65.
233 ibid 20.
234 Defra, ‘Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan’ (n 26).
235 ibid 8.
236 ibid 11.
for all such overflows to either apply disinfection, or reduce the frequency of discharges to
three or fewer per bathing season.237
The Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan states the commitment of the previous
Government to ensure bathing water users are informed in near real-time of any storm
overflow activity or impacts on bathing water quality. This is supported by the commitment
in the plan for the sewerage network to have ‘event duration monitors’ on all storm
overflows from the end of 2023, to provide a complete picture of when, and for how long,
all individual overflows operate. Defra has told us that this commitment was met by the end
of 2023.
A further commitment in the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan is for all water
companies to make near real-time data about the frequency and duration of all storm
overflow discharges available to the public no later than 2025 (by the start of the 2024
Price Review).238
Under the Water Industry Act 1991, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, water
companies are now also required to provide continuous monitoring of certain water
quality parameters in discharges from storm overflows.239 These are dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH, turbidity, ammonia and anything else specified in regulations made by
the Secretary of State, upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewerage assets.
Although these requirements do not cover levels of bacteria, they may provide an indication
of water quality in watercourses.
When it was published in 2023, the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan additionally
stated that the previous Government was reviewing the Bathing Water Regulations,
intending to ‘consult on policy options in 2023 with the aim to complete the review by the
end of 2024.’ This commitment to consult recognised the necessity of further improvements
to protect bathers and other recreational water users, to ensure the regulations reflect
changes in how and where people use bathing waters, and the desire to see more bathing
waters, including rivers, designated.240
Defra also previously committed in 2013 to prepare and consult on an Impact Assessment
for a possible change to the definition of the ‘bathing season’ in the Bathing Water
Regulations.241 However, neither of these bathing water consultations that had been
anticipated in 2013 and 2023 happened prior to the change of Government in July 2024.
6.3.2 Discussion
The effective application and regulation of measures in the water industry to limit sewage
discharges and ensure appropriate treatment are critical to meeting and raising bathing
water standards. As previously noted, however, they are not the only source of pressure on
bathing waters, with agriculture in particular also being significant.
Our report on the implementation of the WFD Regulations discusses several issues
regarding their interaction with mechanisms for water industry improvements and
237 ibid 13.

238 ibid 13, 24–25.
239 S. 141DB, Water Industry Act 1991.
240 Defra, ‘Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan’ (n 26) s 3.4.
241 Defra, ‘Survey on the Length of the Bathing Season in England: Summary of Responses and Way Forward’ (2013) <https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cc06a40f0b6629523b975/bathing-season-sum-resp-20131114.pdf> accessed 10 July 2024.
investments.242 These cover the WINEP and the Price Review process, as well as specific
water company measures such as Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans developed
within these wider frameworks. We highlight a risk of conflicting objectives when
considering water company plans and RBMPs, including an uncertain carry-through from
Programmes of Measures into specific water industry commitments. Again, these issues will
also apply specifically when it comes to application of the WFD Regulations to protect and
improve bathing waters.
A further, more particular issue concerns the timing of the implementation of improvement
measures in the water industry sector which may be important for bathing waters.
As outlined above and discussed further in the Bathing Waters Technical Report,243 major
water industry investments, including those to protect the environment, are identified
through the five-yearly WINEP and Price Review processes. Our report on the WFD
Regulations notes that this does not align with the six-year cycle for updating RBMPs.244
Nor is it clear how it meets the requirement in the WFD Regulations for new actions to be
implemented within three years of their approval in Programmes of Measures.245
This cyclical timing of major water industry improvements creates a particular issue in
respect of bathing waters and the current provisions of the Bathing Water Regulations.
The regulations provide that a bathing water that is ‘poor’ for five consecutive years is
automatically declassified.246 Allowing up to five years to bring a site out of ‘poor’ status
should not be used as a basis to delay improvements that could be applied over a shorter
timescale. In the absence of a possible change of approach (see Section 6.3.3. below),
however, in some cases this may be too short a period to identify, plan for and implement
measures in the water industry sector, or elsewhere, to achieve the necessary improvement.
This is not just a theoretical issue. The Bathing Waters Technical Report discusses three real
cases in England where coastal bathing waters have been declassified in this way.247 The
box below gives a further example of a recently designated inland site which appears to be
at risk of declassification.
Water quality at Cromwheel

The Cromwheel river bathing water site referred to above (Section 6.2.3) has been
assessed as ‘poor’ in its first three bathing seasons, 2021, 2022 and 2023.248 This
creates a risk of it being automatically declassified before there is time for measures to
be implemented to achieve ‘sufficient’ status.
Cromwheel was designated as a bathing water in December 2020. This was one year
after Ofwat’s determination of the Price Review for 2019 to 2024. Testing and analysis
then took three years to help identify factors influencing water quality at the site.249
Management Planning in England’ (n 6). See for example Ss. 4.3.1 and 5.4.1.
243 Stantec and Centre for Research into Environment and Health (n 18) 20–21, 65–66.
Management Planning in England’ (n 6) s 5.4.1.
245 ibid 4.3.3.
246 Reg 13(2)(a), Bathing Water Regulations. Bathing waters may also be declassified before five successive ‘poor classifications’ if the
EA advises and the minister accepts that it would be infeasible or disproportionately expensive for the bathing water to achieve
‘sufficient’.
248 Environment Agency, ‘Working towards a Cleaner Wharfe – a Closer Look at Water Quality Testing at Ilkley’s Bathing Water’ (n 227).
249 ibid.
Some additional investment has been directed towards improvements in this area
through Ofwat’s ‘Accelerated Infrastructure Delivery Project’ over the period 2023
to 2025,250 although it is not yet clear if this will be sufficient to meet the required
standards. Any significant further water industry investment will be subject to the Price
Review determination for 2024 to 2029.
The 2024 bathing water classification for Cromwheel is not yet published. From the
available data in the season to date at the time of this research251 it is not yet clear if it will
be ‘poor’ again, but this is clearly a possibility. If so, this would leave just one more year
for additional measures to achieve a status of at least ‘sufficient’ in 2025 if the bathing
water is not to face automatic declassification and the issue of ‘permanent advice against
bathing’ under the current regulations.
6.3.3 Our view

The change of Government following the election in July 2024 gives rise to possible
changes of direction or policy in this area. As we have noted earlier in this chapter, the new
Government has begun to set its own priorities, including a commitment to review the EIP
and reform the water sector.
We recognise that it will take some time for Government to finalise its plans as regards
the future direction of water policy and law. As it does so, we highlight the importance of
confirming Government’s intentions as regards the WFD Regulations and the Bathing Water
Regulations. For reasons identified in our previous report on the WFD Regulations, and
in this report on bathing waters, we would support the review of both regimes to inform
improvements in their implementation and strengthen their underlying legislative and
governance provisions.
In relation to the Bathing Water Regulations specifically, it would be helpful for Government
to confirm if it plans to undertake a consultation, as had been anticipated under previous
administrations. We believe such a consultation would be appropriate in view of the
possibilities to update the regime and improve its alignment with other measures.
It would equally be helpful for Government to confirm its intentions as regards the previous
administration’s commitments in the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan. These
have important implications for bathing waters and wider water quality. We note that
such commitments will need to be implemented effectively in practice, and subject to
appropriate compliance assessment and, where necessary, enforcement. This will need to
be appropriately resourced.
Finally, we highlight the importance of alignment and coherence as Government determines

how to proceed in respect of the WFD Regulations, the Bathing Water Regulations, the
Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan and wider matters such as the Agricultural
Transition Plan.252 For example, whether Government decides to retain or amend
commitments in the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, it should do so in a way
that aligns with its thinking on the future approach to bathing waters.
250 Ofwat, ‘Accelerated Infrastructure Delivery Project’ <www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulated-companies/price-review/2024-price-review/

accelerated-investment-delivery-project/> accessed 16 July 2024.
251 Defra and Environment Agency, ‘Water Samples History: Wharfe at Cromwheel, Ilkley’ <https://environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/profiles/
data-samples.html?_search=cromwheel&bw=uke4100-08901#current> accessed 11 July 2024.
252 Defra, ‘Agricultural Transition Plan Update January 2024’ (19 March 2024) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-
transition-plan-2021-to-2024/agricultural-transition-plan-update-january-2024> accessed 28 July 2024.
Increasing the number of bathing waters or applying the regime to other recreational water
users, as discussed previously, would lead to correspondingly increased requirements for
storm overflow management, monitoring and widespread effluent disinfection. Government
will therefore need to assess these matters in the round.
We also consider that the current approach in the regulations, for declassification of bathing
waters after five years of ‘poor’ water quality, is inflexible and may be counter-productive.
It appears appropriate that there are provisions in law to declassify bathing waters where
necessary, and to provide short- or long-term advice against bathing where needed.
However, the current requirement for automatic declassification leading to what is said to
be ‘permanent advice against bathing’, such that the standards and the drive to achieve
them no longer apply, appears to run counter to the overall purposes of the Bathing Water
Regulations and the WFD Regulations to maintain and improve water quality and to protect
human health. This is especially the case where works are underway or planned with the
intention of achieving the standards soon thereafter.
More generally, the timings and processes for water industry investments and
improvements need to be aligned with the objectives they are intended to meet. This
should ensure legal obligations, under the Bathing Water Regulations or elsewhere, are
achieved by their due dates.

that Defra revisit the current approach to the declassification of bathing waters, which
can result in successive ‘poor’ results leading to automatic declassification and loss of
bathing water status even where improvements are in progress.
6.4 The Marine Strategy Regulations

In 2010, the Marine Strategy Regulations came into force. These regulations transposed the
EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive253 and set out the UK’s vision for clean, healthy,
safe, productive, and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The regulations require the
UK to take necessary measures to achieve or maintain ‘Good Environmental Status’ in the
marine environment by 31 December 2020.254
The marine environment in England is in a highly depleted state. The last assessment (in
2019) of progress towards achieving Good Environmental Status showed that the UK was
failing to achieve this outcome for the majority of indicators of marine health.255
6.4.2 Discussion
Bathing was identified as a social value and benefit of the marine environment in the last
assessment under the Marine Strategy Regulations. The next assessment is due in 2024
and should confirm whether or not the 2020 marine Good Environmental Status target has
been met.
253 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action
in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) [2008] OJ L164/19.
254 The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010.
255 Defra, ‘Marine Strategy Part One: UK Updated Assessment and Good Environmental Status’ (2019) <www.gov.uk/government/
publications/marine-strategy-part-one-uk-updated-assessment-and-good-environmental-status>.
However, recent data emerging under the implementation of the OSPAR Convention for the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic256 suggests this target will
be missed. The OSPAR 2023 Quality Status Reports257 provide the most comprehensive and
up-to-date assessment of the status of marine strategy indicators in the North-East Atlantic
for the period 2009-2021. This supports our last EIP progress assessment for England
where we identified that the prospects of meeting marine Good Environmental Status by
2020 are largely off-track.258
Two marine indicators for Good Environmental Status of particular relevance here are
eutrophication and marine litter indicators. The former is principally concerned with the
main pressures affecting the pollution of bathing waters, including agriculture, wastewater
treatment and run-off from urban areas. The eutrophication indicator was met in the 2019
assessment and will likely also be met in the 2024 update. The latter overlaps strongly with
the Bathing Water Regulations’ visual monitoring inspection provisions.
The UK Marine Strategy programme of measures to deliver Good Environmental Status only
mentions the Bathing Water Regulations twice.259 These references relate to measures to
address litter from wastewater treatment works and urban drainage, and to remove litter
from the marine environment.
6.4.3 Our View

This discussion of the Marine Strategy Regulations raises similar issues of coherence as
those discussed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 above in relation to the WFD Regulations and
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations. Given the structure and provisions of
the legislation, it is the implementation of the WFD Regulations, in particular, that should
help in setting and achieving bathing and other water quality standards. But clearly there
is also an important overlap and connection with measures to protect and improve the
marine environment.
Our view, therefore, is that ongoing implementation of the Bathing Water Regulations, and
any review of them by Defra, should also take account of this interaction with the Marine
Strategy Regulations. It should address, for instance, the implications for the pursuit of Good
Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Regulations of only setting the minimum
objective of ‘sufficient’ for bathing waters under the WFD Regulations.
More broadly, we highlight the benefits of a coherent approach to applying the UK

Marine Strategy and Bathing Water Regulations. The Marine Strategy Regulations’ current
consideration of bathing waters only extends to some pressures relevant to bathing waters,
with wastewater treatment being the primary one. However, achieving the outcomes of
the Bathing Water Regulations, the Marine Strategy Regulations and the WFD Regulations
will require attention to all pressures. This will therefore benefit from a joined-up strategy
for implementation.
256 The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic or OSPAR Convention is the current
legislative instrument regulating international cooperation on environmental protection in the North-East Atlantic. Work carried out
under the convention is managed by the OSPAR Commission, which is made up of representatives of the Governments of the 15
signatory nations, and representatives of the European Commission, representing the European Union.
257 OSPAR, ‘OSPAR 2023 Quality Status Reports’ <www.ospar.org/work-areas/cross-cutting-issues/qsr2023> accessed 14 August 2024.
258 Office for Environmental Protection, ‘Government Remains Largely off Track to Meet Its Environmental Ambitions, Finds OEP in
Annual Progress Report | Office for Environmental Protection’ (18 January 2024) <www.theoep.org.uk/report/government-remains-
largely-track-meet-its-environmental-ambitions-finds-oep-annual-progress> accessed 27 August 2024.
259 DEFRA, ‘Marine Strategy Part Three: UK Programme of Measures December 2015’ <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486623/marine-strategy-part3-programme-of-measures.pdf>.
6.5 Bye-laws that may restrict bathing or other recreational
water use

Under the Bathing Water Regulations, a bathing water is an identified area of surface water
‘at which permanent advice against bathing is not currently in place’. The Secretary of State
must identify and maintain a list of bathing waters.260
Accordingly, Defra’s criteria for identifying bathing waters state that people cannot
apply ‘where there is permanent advice against bathing’.261 Technically this restriction
only concerns instances where such advice has been issued under the Bathing Water
Regulations.262 In practice, it is also taken to cover circumstances where bathing is not
recommended or has been prohibited for other reasons, as we illustrate in Section
6.5.2 below.
As has been discussed elsewhere, however, the question over whether swimming is
allowed in a particular area can be complex:
‘In some other European countries, including Scotland and most of Scandinavia, there is an
explicit (statutory) legal right to swim or navigate in all water bodies, related to the public
rights to roam. These do not yet exist in England and Wales, however many larger rivers
have a statutory public right of navigation created from acts of parliament [… ]. This right
of navigation is generally interpreted to extend to swimming, although bylaws may restrict
swimming on some stretches (e.g. near locks) on safety grounds due to the chance of a
collision with a boat.’ 263
Similar restrictions may apply to other recreational uses of water which have been
discussed for possible inclusion under the Bathing Water Regulations, as noted in Chapter 4
(Section 4.1) of this report.
6.5.2 Discussion
The interaction between the Bathing Water Regulations and other restrictions on swimming,
for example in bye-laws, is complex.
There appear to be some cases, however, where such restrictions imposed on the basis
(in whole or in part) on the grounds of protecting human health against protection could
have the effect of preventing designation of a bathing water. This in turn could create the
circularity that there is then little or no incentive or legal basis to improve the water quality
for the purposes of protecting human health. This is illustrated in the case study below.

262 Reg 13, WFD Regulations.
263 Wild Swimming, ‘Wild Swimming Access, Legal and Law – Am I Allowed to Wild Swim in Rivers and Lakes?’ <www.wildswimming.
co.uk/access-and-law/> accessed 15 July 2024.
Case Study – Conham River Park
Conham River Park is a stretch of the River Avon in Bristol, used frequently by swimmers
and other recreational users including paddleboarders and kayakers. It is about five
kilometres upstream of the Bristol city centre harbour area, and is defined as being part
of the ‘Bristol City Docks’ under the city bye-laws.264
In 2021, the local ‘Conham Bathers’ group began to prepare an application for
designation of the area as a bathing water.265 In the event, however, the application
could not be progressed due to a city bye-law adopted in 2009. This prohibits swimming
without the consent of the Harbour Master. In contrast, other leisure activities generally
are permitted under the bye-laws as long as they do not impede the passage of
vessels.266
The bye-laws simply state the fact of the prohibition on swimming, rather than the basis
for it. In response to a petition calling for the bye-law to be amended to enable the
bathing water application to proceed, however, the Council cited a number of underlying
reasons for the prohibition: 267
‘To allow swimming […], the Harbour Master would have to give his express consent and,
without investing in significant safety measures, we would find ourselves liable should
anyone come to harm.
Swimming in open water can present risks including cold water shock, boat strike,
hazardous objects under the water, strong currents, and illness and infection. This is why
many open water areas in Bristol have by-laws which prohibit swimming.
In light of the above, we have been asked to review and remove the 2009 Byelaws that
prohibit swimming. This cannot be done in isolation, however the legislation relating to
our harbour estate will be reviewed in the next couple of years and I have asked that
this be considered as part of that process.’
The Council’s response to the petition also noted its intention to introduce a pilot
swimming space in the city harbour. This was first introduced in 2023 and repeated in
2024. It allows people to book and pay to swim at a specific location, with restrictions
on matters such as swimming times, ability and use of equipment.268 It is therefore
somewhat different to the approach that will apply elsewhere where people generally
may access bathing waters free of charge, at the time and manner of their choosing and
at their own risk.
In the meantime, the prohibition on swimming at Conham River Park and elsewhere
remains in place, pending the Council’s anticipated review of the bye-laws. This has been
described by the Conham Bathers as ‘an absurd situation where the Mayor is blocking
our attempt to improve the water quality because of concerns about the water quality.’269
264 Bristol City Council, ‘City Docks Byelaws’ (2016) <www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/874-city-docks-byelaws/file> accessed 1 August
2024.
265 Conham Bathing, ‘Conham Bathing’ <https://www.conhambathing.co.uk> accessed 15 July 2024.
266 Bristol City Docks Bye-Laws 2009. See in particular bye-laws 48 and 49.
267 Bristol City Council, ‘Summons to Attend Meeting of Full Council’ (2022) <https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/b31137/
Responses%20to%20Petitions%20Statements%20and%20Questions%2018th-Oct-2022%2017.00%20Full%20Council.pdf?T=9>
268 Great West Way, ‘Bristol Harbour Swimming’ <www.greatwestway.co.uk/see-and-do/festivals-and-events/bristol-harbour-
swimming-p4748371> accessed 1 August 2024.
269 Patrick Naylor, ‘Bacteria and Bureaucrats’ (Outdoor Swimming Society, 30 May 2024) <www.outdoorswimmingsociety.com/bacteria-
and-bureaucrats/> accessed 1 August 2024.
6.5.3 Our view
The consideration of whether an area of water is safe for swimming will depend on a variety
of factors. We therefore do not question the need for particular authorities to prohibit or
restrict swimming, or other recreational activities, in certain circumstances. Given common
law rights, and to support the objectives of the Bathing Water Regulations, any such
prohibitions or restrictions should be limited, proportionate and justified.
In this context, however, we consider that there is the potential for the interaction of
different measures to act as a barrier to improving water quality under the Bathing Water
Regulations and, by extension, the WFD Regulations.
There is also a risk of incoherence or confusion between different measures where

prohibitions or restrictions on swimming are based, in whole or in part, on the grounds of
preventing illness and infection outside of a process specified under the Bathing Water
Regulations, or in a way that is not clearly connected with those regulations and the
standards that they set for the protection of health.
In the example of the Conham River Park noted above, for instance, as this is not a
designated bathing water there is no formal historical record of bathing water quality
sampling. In addition, the reasons cited for prohibiting swimming there, such as the risk
of cold-water shock and boat strike, equally could apply at other locations including many
designated bathing waters.
Moreover, the Cromwheel site referred to earlier in this chapter (Section 6.3.2) illustrates a
case where a stretch of river has been designated as a bathing water despite it having ‘poor
quality’. This has provided a basis to investigate the causes and take measures to improve
the river’s water quality.
Additionally, as noted above bye-laws may cover not just swimming but also other
recreational uses, sometimes with different restrictions. There is therefore a link here
with the issue we discuss in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1), namely that the distinction between
swimming and some other recreational water uses is not always clear cut. For example,
some people paddleboarding in an area where such activity is permitted will inevitably need
to swim, even if just briefly, if they fall into the water. As a result, they may be exposed to the
risks that underpinned a prohibition on swimming. We therefore suggest that Government
should consider such matters as it decides whether and how to proceed with a possible
review of the Bathing Water Regulations.
Recommendation 12. In any review of the regime, we recommend that Defra clarify the
relationship between provisions under the Bathing Water Regulations for identifying and
monitoring bathing waters, and giving advice against bathing, with rights and restrictions
in common law and bye-laws. This should consider not just the current practical
interpretation of ‘bathing’ to cover swimmers but also the possible application of the
regulations to cover other recreational water users.
Glossary
83
Glossary
AMR Anti-Microbial Resistance
AMP Asset Management Plan
DAERA Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DHSC Department of Health and Social Care
EA Environment Agency
E. coli Escherichia coli
EIP Environmental Improvement Plan
EPR Environmental Permitting Regulations
EU European Union
FIO Faecal Indicator Organism
IE Intestinal Enterococci
MPA Marine Protected Area
MST Microbial Source Tracking
OEP Office for Environmental Protection
OFWAT Water Services Regulation Authority
QR Quick response
RBMP River Basin Management Plan
UKHSA United Kingdom Health Security Agency
WFD Water Framework Directive
WINEP Water Industry National Environment Plan
WHO World Health Organization
84 Glossary
Annex 1. Stakeholder
engagement and
expert review
Annex 1. Stakeholder engagement and
expert review
This annex outlines the approach that the project has taken to stakeholder engagement and
expert review. We gratefully acknowledge the support and input of the many people and
organisations who have contributed to this work.
Project stakeholder group

In carrying out this project, the OEP established a stakeholder group to engage with parties
interested in the Bathing Water Regulations and their implementation. Participants were
drawn from public authorities, industry bodies, environmental NGOs and professional
bodies across England and Northern Ireland.
The group held two online meetings in 2023. To ensure manageability, the group was
necessarily of limited size. However, the group members were able (and encouraged)
to exchange views with, and to collate and put forward information from, their wider
communities of interest. Group attendees were as follows:
z British Canoeing
z Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
z Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
z Environment Agency
z Environmental Standards Scotland
z Green Alliance
z Ilkley Clean River Campaign
z Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful
z Marine Conservation Society
z National Farmers Union
z Northern Ireland Environment Agency
z Northern Ireland Water
z Outdoor Swimming Society
z Rivers Trust
z Stormwater Shepherds
z Surfers against Sewage
z Ulster Farmers Union
z Water UK
86 Annex 1. Stakeholder engagement and expert review

z Wildlife Trusts
This was not intended to be a decision-making or steering body. Nor was the OEP looking
to agree on all issues with all stakeholders. There is a diversity of opinions in many areas
concerned with the Bathing Water Regulations and related matters. As such, the findings
and recommendations presented in this report are those of the OEP and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the stakeholders.
Rather, the group was convened with terms of reference as a forum for updating, discussion
and information-sharing. It also enabled the OEP to gather views, information and evidence
from stakeholders in the project.
Workshop
In addition, the OEP held an online workshop in September 2023 where the consultants
presented their initial findings, as subsequently set out in the Bathing Waters Technical
Report.
The following table presents a brief summary of stakeholder concerns and views expressed
during the project, some of which are expanded on in this report.
Main topic Stakeholder views

Suggested taking a tiered approach with the level
of designation being dependent on the number
of criteria met by that site.
Concern over the number of water users needed

to trigger designation.
Designation of bathing water sites
Suggested that it would be beneficial and more
efficient for groups to have initial discussions with
Defra regarding applications prior to submission.
Access and facilities were of significant discussion

including the need for toilet facilities.
A view that a single point of testing for bathing water
Sample point location
quality in rivers is insufficient.
Concerns raised regarding signs placed at freshwater
sites and the inconsistency between signage at
saline and freshwater sites.
There was a concern raised that provisions for

bathing water signage are inadequate. For example,
Signage a bathing water deemed ‘poor’ or unsafe for bathing
only requires a notice to be placed upon the standard
fixed bathing water sign. At many locations bathing
waters can be accessed from numerous locations
and a single sign will not be visible to many of the
beach users.
Annex 1. Stakeholder engagement and expert review 87

A view that there is a demand on bathing areas all
Length of bathing season year round, and that an extension of the season
length would be beneficial.
A view that a water user should include paddle
Other water users
boarding, surfing, canoeing and other water sports.
Stakeholders expressed the opinion that river
swimming has become more popular and the
Riverine bathing sites
protocols developed for coastal bathing may
need to be reviewed.
In a Northern Ireland context, regarding the
transparency of water quality monitoring and the
Real time information length of time taken to issue water quality data, the
EA’s ‘Swimfo’ website was recognised as broadly
positive and potentially easy to replicate.
There was a perception raised that ‘poor’ bathing
waters are predominantly caused by discharges from
storm overflows. This can lead to measures such
as those required under the Environment Act 2021
for all storm overflows within 5 km upstream of an
inland bathing water to discharge less than twice
per bathing season.
There were different views on the extent to which

Storm overflows
storm overflow discharges affect bathing water
quality and classifications.
There was some disagreement that this potentially

takes investment or focus away from agricultural
pollution sources and continuous water company
and private sewerage discharges such as sewage
treatment works, which may have a greater impact
for longer periods.
There was a view that there is a need to develop
pollution risk forecasting at bathing water sites,
to better inform bathing water users.
The bathing water classification only relates to

bacterial water quality and does not include any
provision for other public health considerations
Other public health concerns
from bathing.
‘Physical factors’ such as cold-water shock,

strong tidal currents or rip tides, hidden underwater
obstacles and safe access / egress to and from the
bathing site are not considered by the regulations,
including during the identification process.
88 Annex 1. Stakeholder engagement and expert review

There were suggestions for better dissemination
and regular updates to information within England
and Northern Ireland around the works being done
to improve ‘poor’ bathing waters.
Bathing water management
There was a desire for more and regular
information to be published describing the steps
the authorities are taking when a bathing water
is classified as ‘poor’.
There were views expressed that the regulations
need to be more robust in this area.
De-designation of bathing waters There were also views expressed that regulators
should be made more accountable for their
reasoning behind de-designation.
There were views expressed concerning the need
Regulator accountability for improved communication regarding action plans
for failing bathing waters.
There were concerns around the transparency
Discounting of samples
of discounting of samples.
Expert review
Prior to its completion, we sent a draft copy of chapters of this report to external experts
for independent review. These were drawn from the OEP’s College of Experts and other
individuals outside the OEP based on their subject matter expertise and availability to
undertake the review.
The individual reviewers from the OEP’s College of Experts were Howard Brett and Liz
Buchanan. We also invited and received comment from reviewers in Environmental
Standards Scotland, the Interim Environmental Protection Assessor for Wales and the Royal
Academy of Engineering.
All the reviewers returned comments which we have considered in finalising the report.
The report remains the work and presents the conclusions of the OEP. It does not
necessarily reflect the views of the reviewers.
Annex 1. Stakeholder engagement and expert review 89

ISBN: 978-1-5286-5147-9
E03186003

E03186003_OEP Bathing Water England_Accessible

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E03186003_OEP Bathing Water England_Accessible

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E03186003_OEP Bathing Water England_Accessible

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A review of implementation

of the Bathing Water

Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 29(2) of the

Dame Glenys Stacey

8 Executive summary and recommendations

In May 2024 we reported separately on implementation of the WFD Regulations in

The Bathing Water Regulations

Executive summary and recommendations 9

Current status of bathing waters in England

10 Executive summary and recommendations

The bathing water season

The identification of bathing waters

We consider that an alternative approach to defining a ‘large number of bathers’ may be

Further, we identify possibilities to increase transparency in the outcome of bathing water

Executive summary and recommendations 11

Monitoring of bathing waters

12 Executive summary and recommendations

Coherence with related law and policy

The WFD Regulations

Executive summary and recommendations 13

Water industry regulation and investment

25 Reg 5(1)(b), Bathing Water Regulations.

14 Executive summary and recommendations

Executive summary and recommendations 15

Recommendation 1. We recommend that, in applying its duty to review the Bathing

16 Executive summary and recommendations

Executive summary and recommendations 17

1.2 What is a ‘bathing water’?

When an area of water is legally designated as a ‘bathing water’, it becomes subject to

1.3 Why we are looking at the Bathing Water Regulations

The importance of bathing waters extends beyond recreational enjoyment, encompassing

1.4 Focus of this report

z How effective has their implementation been?

Review of the Bathing Water Regulations

1.5 Our approach

Firstly, we have reviewed relevant legislation, guidance documents, implementation reports

Secondly, we convened a stakeholder group to facilitate broad-based engagement. This

Fourthly, to support the project, we commissioned independent research from the

1.6 Structure of this report

2.1 Brief history of the Bathing Water Regulations

2.2 Summary of the Bathing Water Regulations

26 2. The Bathing Water Regulations

Identification of and reporting on bathing waters

The bathing season

Classification of bathing waters

General duties of the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency to

45 Reg 3(1), Bathing Water Regulations.

2. The Bathing Water Regulations 27

Sampling, monitoring and investigations

Bathing water profiles

Public communication and reporting

Declassification of bathing waters

53 Reg 5(1)(b), Bathing Water Regulations.

28 2. The Bathing Water Regulations

Guidance and enforcement

2.3 Blue Flag Awards

This programme is world renowned, with a series of strict environmental, educational,

59 Reg 13(2)-(3), Bathing Water Regulations.

2. The Bathing Water Regulations 29

3.1 Dominance of coastal bathing sites in England