°Ç¸ç³Ô¹Ï

Executive summary

Defra held a consultation on proposals to designate 13 new sites as bathing waters under the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1675) (the ‘Regulations’) as amended by The Bathing Water (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1129). The consultation ran from 13 February 2026 to 23 March 2026.

Water quality at designated bathing waters in England is monitored by the Environment Agency (EA) during the bathing season, which in England runs from 15 May to 30 September. Based on that data, bathing waters are classified annually as excellent, good, sufficient or poor. If water quality is poor the EA will investigate the sources of pollution and recommend remedial measures to make improvements.

The proposed bathing waters Defra consulted on were:

• Canvey Island Foreshore
• East Beach at West Bay, Bridport
• Falcon Meadow, Bungay
• Little Shore, Amble
• New Brighton Beach (East)
• Newton Noss
• Pangbourne Meadow
• Queen Elizabeth Gardens, Salisbury
• River Dee, Sandy Lane, Chester
• River Fowey in Lostwithiel
• River Swale in Richmond
• River Thames at Ham and Kingston
• Sandgate Granville Parade Beach

The consultation asked respondents to confirm whether they agreed, disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate each site as a bathing water, and invited them to provide reasons for their view if they wished to. The consultation also asked respondents to provide information about any facilities or infrastructure which promote bathing at the site they were providing their view on.

Respondents only had to respond about one site to have their response counted, but were able to comment on more than one, or all of the sites if they wished to.

This was a national consultation, following local consultations that were held by the applicants as part of the evidence gathering process for their applications. This document summarises the responses to the national consultation.

Summary of responses

Defra received 5,546 responses to the consultation, with some respondents giving their views on more than one site. Many responses related to the site(s) with which the respondents were familiar, while some respondents gave a general response to the designation of many or all sites. Most respondents gave more than one reason for why they agreed, disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with a proposed designation.

Organisations that responded were mainly national or local swimming and other water sports organisations, national or local environmental non-governmental organisations and societies, industry organisations and water companies. A list of organisations from whom Defra received a response is included in Annex A.

Responses from national organisations

Some national organisations made general comments about bathing water designation in their responses or made comments that applied to all or several of the sites. These responses are summarised below and are included in the figures provided for each site.

The Country Land and Business Association provided a response noting their concern that swimmers may potentially trespass, whether inadvertently or intentionally, beyond the bounds of the 13 sites should they be designated. They recommended that any sites are clearly demarcated with signage or other appropriate markers.

The National Farmers Union North Region team provided responses for 4 sites: the River Swale in Richmond, New Brighton Beach (East), Little Shore in Amble and the River Dee at Sandy Lane in Chester. They disagreed with all the proposals. They highlighted concerns around the ability to trace diffuse sources of faecal indicator organisms to specific locations using current water quality testing methods, as well as the financial burden on farm businesses, and the wider rural economy, that might arise from any need to improve water quality at these sites.

The Outdoor Swimming Society supported the designation of all 13 sites as bathing waters. Their view was that the popularity of outdoor swimming has seen an increase in popularity, bringing economic benefits to local areas and health benefits to swimmers. In light of this, the designation of further sites would mean water quality was regularly tested, which should lead to improvements and give swimmers information to help them decide when and where to enter the water. They also raised concerns about a lack of consideration in the consultation over access to sites for disabled swimmers.

Paddle UK supported the designation of all 13 sites, noting the sites are already popular with water users. They recognised that designation would mean water quality was regularly monitored, providing information that would help paddlers make informed choices about when to enter the water.

The Royal Life Saving Society UK welcomed the government’s reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations, specifically the intention to introduce an additional assessment of the physical safety of those who bathe at a site before it is designated. They noted a concern that this approach is not within the scope of this consultation. They provided a range of recommendations, including evaluating the feasibility of requiring the provision of lifeguards or safety teams at all designated bathing waters, to reduce drowning risk as far as possible.

Surfers Against Sewage supported the designation of all 13 sites as bathing waters. They stated that these sites were already popular with a range of water users, and that designation and the associated monitoring of water quality would provide them with information to make informed choices before entering the water. They also highlighted the requirement to investigate the causes of poor water quality at bathing waters as a benefit of designation, as well as positive physical and mental health benefits associated with access to bathing waters and local communities.

Swim England supported the designation of all 13 sites as bathing waters on the basis it would deliver substantial public, environmental and economic benefits. In their response they also noted that designation increases the transparency around water quality and can help drive water quality improvements by managing the areas to bathing water standards. Citing reports of growth in the popularity of open water swimming, they view these designations as a way of meeting a demand for accessible natural bathing locations.

Anglian Water supported the designation of all 13 sites as bathing waters, acknowledging the importance of bathing waters to their customers and to the region’s tourism economy. They highlighted that 2 of the sites, Canvey Island Foreshore in Essex and Falcon Meadow, Bungay were within their region and welcomed in particular the proposal to designate the latter, stating they had supported the River Waveney Trust in preparing its application.

Northumbrian Water provided a response concerning Little Shore, Amble. They noted they had provided general support to the Coquet River Action Group in the preparation of their application, including what would be involved should there be a need to undertake an investigation to understand the sources of bacteria impacting water quality. They stated their commitment to work with partners so coastal bathing waters in their region achieve Good or Excellent classification by 2030.

South West Water provided responses regarding the 2 sites in their region: Newton Noss and the River Fowey in Lostwithiel. They stated that they remain broadly neutral on the issue of designations and recognised economic benefits of each designated bathing water in their region. They noted that in the event of designation they would promote proportionate investment to improve water quality through the Price Control process, noting the potential to increase customer bills should this approach be required. They highlighted that both sites were located at the bottom of a catchment with significant risks to water quality from agricultural activity.

Southern Water wrote in support of the proposal to designate the site in their region, Sandgate Granville Parade Beach. They noted that the site is located within close proximity to several potential sources of contamination which will require careful and co-ordinated management between the Local Authority, the Environment Agency and Southern Water to ensure bathing water quality objectives can be achieved and maintained.

United Utilities wrote in support of the application for New Brighton Beach (East), the one site in their region, noting that investigations may be required into the impact of their assets on water quality at the site. They explained that should this be required in the future, funding would need to be secured via the Price Review process, meaning improvements to water quality from any investment would take time to be realised.

Thames Water provided responses regarding the 2 sites in their region: Pangbourne Meadow and the River Thames at Ham & Kingston. They agreed with the proposal to designate Pangbourne Meadow, and neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal for the River Thames at Ham & Kingston.

In relation to the latter site, they raised concerns that work has not been done to establish water quality at the site before designation, and that this could result in additional investigations and updates to company assets should the water quality at the site be classified as ‘poor’ after designation. They noted that this activity was not currently funded and highlighted the risk that if improvements were later required, the site could be de-designated for sustained poor water quality before they could be realised because of the cyclical nature of water company funding.

They also highlighted that new bathing water designations increase pressure on affordability and deliverability of the 25-year Storm Overflow Discharge Reduction Plan (SODRP). They asked that the Secretary of State consider delaying the designation of further bathing waters until all reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations have been implemented, which in their view should include a cost benefit analysis of bathing water designations.

Wessex Water provided responses regarding the 2 sites in their region: Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury and East Beach at West Bay in Bridport. They stated that they supported the proposal for these sites in general but are of the view that any additional bathing waters need to be justified based on use and the opportunity to achieve cost effective compliance through a feasibility assessment. They also shared the concerns expressed by Thames Water about the potential need to take action that they are not currently funded for. They also highlighted that the 2 sites in question are located at the bottom of a catchment with significant agricultural risk to water quality, meaning implementation of controls by other sectors under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Farming Rules for Water (FRfW) will be essential to achieve a classification of sufficient or higher.

Welsh Water responded regarding the River Dee, Sandy Lane, Chester stating they neither supported nor opposed the designation at this stage. Their view is a fuller understanding of water quality, pollution source risks and potential costs is crucial to the decision.

Yorkshire Water noted that they were generally supportive of the proposal to designate the site in their region on the River Swale in Richmond, North Yorkshire. They emphasised the importance of a co-ordinated, whole catchment approach to achieving and sustaining good water quality and the limited time to complete the investigations needed to inform any asset investment before designation. They also shared views on the dangers of river swimming and a need for strong public safety measures at designated bathing water sites.

Responses to each proposed site

The summaries below provide an overview of the responses Defra received for each of the 13 proposed sites. Table 1 in Annex B shows the breakdown of the number of responses that agreed with, disagreed with, or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate each of the sites.

Little Shore, Amble, Northumberland

Of the 165 responses received, 160 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 1 disagreed with the proposal and 4 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were benefits for the local community (138 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (128 respondents) and access to bathing waters for the public (125 respondents).

The National Farmers Union North Region team disagreed with the proposal, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The 4 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

Newton Noss

Of the 249 responses received, 243 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, none disagreed and 6 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were water quality improvements (206 respondents), benefits for the local community (203 respondents) and access to bathing waters for the public (200 respondents).

The 6 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included South West Water, the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’. A further respondent stated they had no objection in principle to the proposal and supported the opportunity for cleaner water, but felt there was the potential for disturbance of wildlife, as well as risks from boating activity related to oyster catching.  

Canvey Island Foreshore

Of the 126 responses received, 120 agreed with the proposal to designate this site as a bathing water, 2 disagreed and 4 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were access to a bathing water for the public (93 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (87 respondents) and benefits for the local community (85 respondents).

The reasons cited by the 2 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included a belief the water quality would not be improved as a result, and concerns about the ability of local infrastructure and facilities to support increased visitor numbers.

The 4 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included South West Water, the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

Sandgate Granville Parade Beach

Of the 314 responses received, 309 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 1 disagreed with the proposal and 4 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were access to bathing waters for the public (269 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (259 respondents) and benefits for the local community (258 respondents).

The 4 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The reasons cited by the respondent who disagreed with the proposal included a belief there was not local demand for a bathing water, that it would not lead to water quality being improved and they did not think it would protect nature and wildlife.

Queen Elizabeth Gardens, Salisbury

Of the 97 responses received, 92 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, none disagreed and 5 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were benefits for the local community (73 respondents), access to bathing waters for the public (70 respondents) and physical and mental health benefits for the public (69 respondents).

The 5 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’. An additional respondent noted that previously all the waters in the park had been used for bathing, and that isolating a single area as a bathing water could cause issues.

East Beach at West Bay, Bridport

Of the 465 responses received, 460 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, none disagreed and 5 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were water quality improvement (380 respondents), access to a bathing water for the public (373 respondents) and physical and mental health benefits for the public (369 respondents).

The 5 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

Pangbourne Meadow

Of the 83 responses received, 78 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, none disagreed and 5 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were access to a bathing water for the public (60 respondents), benefits for the local community (59 respondents) and physical and mental health benefits for the public (57 respondents).

The 5 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’. An additional respondent stated the consultation did not provide sufficient information to allow them to provide a response.

River Fowey in Lostwithiel

Of the 218 responses received, 209 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 4 disagreed and 5 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were benefits for the local community (170 respondents), access to a bathing water for the public (169 respondents) and physical and mental health benefits for the public (166 respondents).

The 5 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included South West Water, the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The reasons cited by the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included a belief that the water quality would not be improved as a result of the proposal, concerns it would not help protect nature and wildlife and that there would not be benefits for the local community.

River Swale in Richmond, North Yorkshire

Of the 61 responses received, 55 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 2 disagreed and 4 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were access to a bathing water for the public (39 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (36 respondents) and benefits for the local community (34 respondents).

The 4 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The National Farmers Union North Region disagreed with the proposal, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

Falcon Meadow, Bungay

Of the 117 responses received, 112 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 1 disagreed and 4 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were benefits for the local community (96 respondents), access to a bathing water for the public (93 respondents) and physical and mental health benefits for the public (92 respondents).

The 4 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The reasons cited by the respondent who disagreed with the proposal included a belief the water quality would not be improved as a result of the proposal, and it wouldn’t help to protect nature and wildlife.

River Thames at Ham and Kingston

Of the 2624 responses received, 2587 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 24 disagreed and 13 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were benefits for the local community (2150 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (2140 respondents) and improvements to water quality (2139 respondents).

Of the 13 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site, potential safety issues and concerns over water quality were cited as reasons. Respondents included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The reasons cited by the 24 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included The Kingston River Safety Forum, who highlighted a range of safety concerns specific to this site. These included limited safety equipment at the site, poor access to the site for emergency service vehicles and the use of this part of the river as a turning location for Trowlock Island, adjacent to the site. They stated that their approach to date has been to promote a ‘do not enter the water’ message, amplified through specific campaigns and on-site signage. They believe that designating this site gives the impression to weak and non-swimmers that it is safe to enter the River Thames, not just at this site but in other locations.

New Brighton Beach (East)

Of the 455 responses received, 445 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 3 disagreed and 7 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were access to a bathing water for the public (384 respondents), physical and mental health benefits for the public (380 respondents) and benefits for the local community (370 respondents).

The 7 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The 3 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included The National Farmers Union North Region team, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’. Another respondent noted a preference for a nearby location to be designated instead.

River Dee, Sandy Lane, Chester

Of the 572 responses received, 557 agreed with the proposal to designate the site as a bathing water, 9 disagreed and 6 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

The most cited reasons given by those in support of designating this site were improvements in water quality (478 respondents), access to a bathing water for the public (465 respondents) and physical and mental health benefits for the public (459 respondents).

The 6 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate this site included the Country Land and Business Association and the Royal Life Saving Society, citing the reasons summarised in ‘Responses from national organisations’.

The reasons cited by the 9 respondents who disagreed with the proposal included a belief that the water quality could not be improved, potential risks to nature and wildlife and lack of local demand for a bathing water.

Government response

Defra would like to thank all those who responded to this consultation. We welcome this feedback and will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders on the issues raised. These include:

• the operation of the Bathing Water Regulations 2013
• the current application and consultation process
• the improvement of, and investment in, bathing waters once designated

Defra has engaged with Natural England to ensure that any bathing water designation is compatible with any statutory provisions in place at a given site to protect wildlife, habitats and features of interest. Specifically, we have worked with Natural England to better understand potential habitat deterioration risks that could be generated by bathing water designation at particular sites and how these could be addressed. For 4 of the sites in question (East Beach at West Bay, Little Shore Amble, the River Dee at Sandy Lane, Chester and Queen Elizabeth Gardens Salisbury), we have written to the responsible local authority (LAs) to encourage them to include additional information about the protected features of the bathing site as part of bathing water signage they will be required to install. This includes the need to bathe responsibly given the sensitivity of the site and other nearby areas.

South West Water, Thames Water, Wessex Water and United Utilities noted concerns about the potential for financial impacts arising from these designations. Of specific concern was the impact of any sites that are classified as ‘poor’ once designated. If this were to happen, they would need to investigate the sources of pollution and, if necessary, update infrastructure.

It is noted that the cost of this work is not funded in current Asset Management Plan business plans, and that this would delay action being taken until the next Price Review and Asset Management Plan cycle. We also recognise that some respondents mentioned concerns about safety at designated bathing waters in their responses to this consultation.

We have introduced changes to the Bathing Water Regulations, coming into effect on 15 May 2026, to allow for a new assessment process prior to designation. This will include an assessment of the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least ‘sufficient’.

This process will also assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe there is likely to be a significant risk to the physical safety of bathers from the particular features of the site, as well as whether there would be a significant environmental impact.

As the legal powers to make these determinations had not yet come into effect, we were unable to apply them to the decisions within the scope of this consultation. We hope to do so going forward.  

Decisions and next steps

Following this consultation, 13 sites will be added to the list of designated bathing waters in England and monitored by the Environment Agency with effect from the 2026 bathing season, which begins on 15 May 2026.

These new bathing water sites are named:

• Amble Little Shore
• Canvey Island Foreshore
• East Beach at West Bay
• Falcon Meadow, River Waveney
• Ham and Kingston, River Thames
• Lostwithiel, River Fowey
• New Brighton Beach East
• Newton and Noss
• Pangbourne Meadow, River Thames
• River Avon at Queen Elizabeth Gardens
• Sandgate Granville Parade
• Sandy Lane Chester
• River Swale above Richmond Falls

The relevant local authorities for the 13 sites are:

• Northumberland County Council
• South Hams District Council
• Castle Point Borough Council
• Folkestone and Hythe District Council
• Salisbury City Council
• Dorset Council
• Pangbourne Parish Council
• Cornwall Council
• North Yorkshire Council
• Bungay Town Council
• Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
• Wirral Council
• Cheshire West and Chester Council

The Environment Agency will prepare bathing water profiles and identify a sampling point for each site, based on where the largest number of bathers go into the water. Monitoring will commence in May 2026.

During the bathing season, the relevant local authority will be responsible for providing public information about water quality and potential pollution sources at the bathing water and for taking management measures, usually in the form of providing warning signage, as advised by the EA, during pollution incidents. Defra will provide funding towards the cost of information signage. Bathing water designation will not affect or alter any protections already in place at the sites under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

We encourage applications from local councils, private operators and other organisations for beaches and inland bathing areas that meet the criteria set out in the application guidance on bathing water designation.

Annex A - List of responding organisations

This list of responding organisations is not exhaustive. Rather, it is based on those that declared their organisation when responding to the consultation. This may include responses from individuals who are members of, or affiliated to, an organisation and who gave that organisation’s name when responding to the consultation.

This list also does not include organisations which asked for their response to be kept confidential or those that did not include the name of the organisation.

• Active Cheshire
• Active Leisure Events Ltd
• Alnwick District Triathlon Club
• Amble Swimmers
• Amble W.I.
• Anglian Water
• Bench Blisters Rowing Club
• The Bluetits
• Bridport Gig Rowing Club
• Bridport Tourist Information Centre
• Brixton Parish Council
• Canal and River Trust
• Canbury and Riverside Association (CARA)
• Cheshire Wildlife Trust
• Chester and District Scouts (Bellboating)
• Chester and District Scouts
• Chester Sailing and Canoeing Club
• Chester Triathlon Club
• Chester Zoo
• Clean Mersey
• Clean River Kent Campaign
• Climate Vision
• Coquet River Action Group (CRAG)
• Cornwall Climate Action Network
• Country Land and Business Association
• Cow Tower Dippers
• Deva Canoe Club
• Dip Swimming
• Eco Church Team, St Peters Church, Petersham
• Eco Communities
• Exploding Bakery
• Falcon Meadow Community Trust
• Feral State Beach School
• Flowerdew Farm
• Fluid Fitness
• Folkestone Rowing Club
• Friends of the Earth
• Friends Of The Earth Chester & District
• ITS Europe Ltd
• Kemira Chemicals Germany
• Kingston Blue Tits
• Kingston Educational Trust
• Kingston River Safety Forum
• Leander (Kingston) Sea Scouts
• Lostwithiel Outdoor Swimming Group
• Lyminge Preschool
• Mid Sussex Triathlon Club
• MSP (the Active Partnership for Liverpool City Region)
• National Farmers Union North Region
• National Fire Chiefs Councils
• National Trust
• National Trust Thames Valley Group
• Natural England
• Newton and Noss Parish Council and The River Yealm Water Quality Group
• Newton Ferrers
• No CO2 pipeline Wirral
• Wallasey Beach Community Interest Company
• Northumbrian Water
• New Sarum Women’s Institue
• Old Priorian Association
• Outdoor Swimming Society
• Paddle UK
• Pangbourne Bluetits
• Parish of Par
• Places Leisure
• RB Immigration
• Reactive Watersports
• Red Caps Surf Lifesaving Club
• River Dee Chester Frosties
• River Thames Boat Project
• River Waveney Trust
• River Yealm Water Quality Group
• Royal Life Saving Society UK
• Small Boat Club, Kingston Upon Thames
• Save Our Lands and River
• South Hams District Council
• South West Water
• Southend Canoe Club
• Southern Water
• Spirit Unbounded
• Surfers Against Sewage
• Swim England
• Swimming Alliance
• SwimQuest Ltd
• Teddington Women’s Institute
• Thames Water
• The Boat House Sandgate Ltd
• The Green Party
• The Hampton Wick Association
• The Island Yacht Club
• The River Bride group
• The SUP Life Ltd
• Thetford River Group
• Tubb pharmacy
• United Utilities
• Wallasey Beach Club
• Warkworth Harbour Commissioners
• River Wavney Trust
• Welsh Water
• Wembury Marine Conservation Area Advisory Group
• Wessex Water
• West Bay Swimmers Action Group
• West Dorset Commons
• Whitchurch-on-Thames Parish Council
• Wild Swimmers
• Wirral Blue Tits
• Wirral Green Party
• Yealm Gig Rowing Club CIO
• Yealmpton Parish Council
• YMCA St Paul’s Group
• Yorkshire Water

Annex B – total number of responses received for each site.

Table 1: Responses for each site

Proposed bathing water	Total number of responses	Agreed with the proposal to designate	Disagreed with the proposal to designate	Neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal to designate
Canvey Island Foreshore	126	120	2	4
East Beach at West Bay, Bridport	465	460	0	5
Falcon Meadow, Bungay	117	112	1	4
Little Shore, Amble	165	160	1	4
New Brighton Beach (East)	455	445	3	7
Newton Noss	249	243	0	6
Pangbourne Meadow	83	78	0	5
Queen Elizabeth Gardens, Salisbury	97	92	0	5
River Dee, Sandy Lane, Chester	572	557	9	6
River Fowey in Lostwithiel	218	209	4	5
River Swale in Richmond	61	55	2	4
River Thames at Ham and Kingston	2624	2587	24	13
Sandgate Granville Parade Beach	314	309	1	4