Environmental health officers from Tendring District Council (TDC) appear to have ruled out the EWD/Dunmow waste treatment site in Morses Lane as the source of the ‘Brightlingsea smell’ – but have failed to find an alternative source.

The finding comes after what the council says has been “extensive pro-active odour monitoring since the beginning of June 2023” – including 27 proactive and two reactive visits.

Although officers were said to have witnessed the smell – described by some residents as “putrid” – on four occasions on three days, a statement released by TDC said that “unfortunately due to the irregular and intermittent odour patterns, it makes it very difficult for us to identify the source”.

The statement adds: “A number of residents have alleged that the odour is emanating from the Eastern Waste Disposal (EWD) site. The council has recently undertaken investigations concerning this and it has not been substantiated that the EWD site is the source of all the odours that are being reported. We are satisfied that the site is taking appropriate measures to control the odour however some odour from the site must be expected at times.”

TDC joins the Environment Agency (EA) and Anglian Water (AW) in being unable to find the source of the smell, which has been intermittently affecting residents, particularly those in the upper part of town and around the Fiveways store, for more than a year.

The council statement says the EA is the lead authority regarding enforcement at the EWD site – though TDC is responsible for permits covering some activities – and is satisfied “best practicable means” are being applied by the site, and that there have been no breaches in respect of permit conditions. 

AW permits the discharge of liquid waste from the site into its drains and regular monitoring is said to have found no recorded breaches.

“We appreciate the frustrations some residents may feel towards the operations at the site, but we are satisfied that no statutory nuisance, as defined within the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is emanating from the site known locally as EWD,” says the TDC statement.

It continues: “Therefore, we will not be performing any further pro-active monitoring visits, instead we will perform reactive monitoring visits, as and when we receive any direct complaints from residents.  We will then attend as soon as reasonably practicable to visit the complainant within their property to establish the situation at the time.”

Affected residents are urged to call the council’s customer support team to log instances of the smell.  The council says this will ensure all calls and emails are logged, “enabling officers to visit the complainant within their home to ascertain the impact of the odour”. 

The contact number is 01255 686 767 and the email is [email protected].

Editor David Bridle writes: TDC has, at least, recorded that the smell exists – though its officers were apparently unable to follow their noses to the source.

So for now, the smell officially remains a mystery. One that exists – by and large – in the noses of residents and not those of the statutory authorities. The council isn’t wrong when it says that affected residents will find this frustrating.

But there were three key points to take away. The first is this line (and the italics are mine): “We are satisfied that the site is taking appropriate measures to control the odour however some odour from the site must be expected at times.”

How much and what sort of odour should be expected?

Second, the statement says it’s “worth noting” that “there is scope within the Environmental Protection Act 1990, for aggrieved person/s to take their own action in respect of a statutory nuisance.”

Any action under this civil law, says the council, would see a complainant taking a case to a magistrate where the burden of proof would be decided on the balance of probability. In contrast, the council would have to bring a criminal prosecution – where the case would have to proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Is that a hint that it might be easier for a group of residents to take action rather than the council?

And the third is that the council may be stopping pro-active inspections, but has said it will continue to respond reactively – ie, when called out by affected residents. If that’s a genuine pledge, then the more times people call the council to report a smell, the more times its officers are going to have to visit Brightlingsea… and that just might prompt further action.