WASP, represented by law firm Leigh Day, says that the planning applications for the two developments do not adequately address concerns about the impact of increased sewage on Oxford’s current sewerage system. 

Writing to the council, the group also argues that the new housing plans contradict local planning policy, which requires there to be sufficient evidence that utilities have the capacity to support the development. 

A development located to the north-east of the city at Bayswater Brook, is set for an approval decision later this month (October 2024) and would see the construction of 1,400 homes.  

The other development, located near Goose Green Close in north Oxford, would see the building of 24 new homes, and was granted approval by Oxford City Council’s planning committee in mid-September.  

Problems with the sewerage system in Oxford, which is run by Thames Water, have already been acknowledged by the Environment Agency (EA). The EA took the unusual step of objecting to Bayswater Brook development because of ‘significant concern’ about the state of Oxford Sewage Treatment Works (STW). 

The EA advised in its 2021 inspection that upgrades to the sewerage system would need to be implemented in order to deal with additional sewage flows created by further housing developments.  

While conditions are proposed to be included in the planning permissions for both the Goose Green Close and Bayswater Brook developments setting out that upgrades to the sewage network would be required, WASP argues that these are not adequate. They say that the plans only contain vague references to a “development and infrastructure plan” that might still allow the developments to be occupied before the works to Oxford STW are carried out.  

Planned improvements for the sewerage system had been scheduled for completion in March 2025, but it is understood that these have now been delayed by years. 

WASP claims that the grant of planning permission would be unlawful as the condition included does not do enough to address concerns raised by objectors, including the Environment Agency. It says that the plans do not lay out strict enough instructions to avoid over-capacity issues which could lead to sewage pollution. 

Environmental consultant and WASP volunteer Vaughan Lewis said: 

“Yet again Thames Water has chosen to put its profits before its responsibility to its customers’ health and the environment. Let’s be clear: WASP is not anti-housing, but we are pro-rivers. We should not be having to take this step to remind local authorities of their responsibility to protect local rivers, and to firmly reject the contempt that Thames Water has shown towards us all. It is vital that the government supports the principled stand that the Environment Agency has taken. If it fails to do so, it will clearly signal that its loyalty lies with corporate shareholders and not the needs of our environment.” 

Leigh Day environment team solicitor Ricardo Gama said: 

“WASP is hugely frustrated that things have got to a stage where a choice has to be made between the building of much-needed housing and further pollution to rivers around Oxford. They say that this situation could have been avoided if Thames Water had made the investments needed to its sewage infrastructure before the sewage network had reached breaking point. They hope that drawing attention to these issues will add pressure on Thames Water, Ofwat and government to sort out the sewage infrastructure crisis.”