Community Update: Why We Asked So Many Questions & What’s Happening With the Responses

Between 17 March and 26 May 2026, our volunteer group submitted nine Environmental Information Regulation (EIR) requests and four internal review requests. Altogether, these included around 160 questions about what’s happening in our local rivers and brooks.

That number can sound big at first glance. So let’s talk about what it really means and why it’s completely normal when a community is trying to understand what’s happening to its environment.

Why 160 questions isn’t “too many”

When people hear 160 questions it’s easy to imagine something overwhelming but in reality, these questions came from:

• things residents have seen in the water

• gaps in information we’ve been given

• unclear explanations

• missing data

• repeated pollution concerns

• and the need to understand how decisions are being made

Environmental information is detailed and interconnected. One unclear answer often leads to another question. One missing document creates a follow‑up and contradictions need clarification.

So the number isn’t a sign of excess it’s a sign of how many pieces of the picture are still unclear.

Importantly under the Environmental Information Regulations, the number of questions isn’t what matters. What matters is whether the questions are:

• relevant

• reasonable

• connected to environmental information

• and in the public interest

Ours are all of those things.

Why communities often need multiple EIRs

When you’re trying to understand:

• pollution incidents

• water quality changes

• monitoring results

• how decisions were made

• who was informed and when

• what actions were taken

…it naturally takes more than one request.

The law recognises this, the EIR framework is designed to support public participation, transparency, and community understanding.

So no, this isn’t “too many”.

It’s simply what happens when a community is trying to get clear answers about its rivers.

What Severn Trent have said

Severn Trent’s responses so far have included a few repeated themes. Understanding them and setting them against what the Environmental Information Regulations actually require helps make sense of where things stand.

1. “Your requests are manifestly unreasonable.”

This has been the main justification used to refuse multiple EIRs.

Under Regulation 12(4)(b), this exemption can only be applied when a request creates a genuine and evidenced burden. The organisation must show:

• what the burden is

• how they calculated it

• why it outweighs the public interest in disclosure

• what advice and assistance they offered to refine the request

Severn Trent have not provided this evidence. Instead, refusals have been issued without workload estimates, without public‑interest balancing, and without meaningful Regulation 9 advice.

This is why the refusals do not meet ICO standards.

2. “These questions are too many / too detailed / too complex.”

This framing misunderstands the purpose of the EIRs.

Environmental information is inherently detailed. The law expects that communities may need:

• multiple requests

• follow‑up questions

• clarification of unclear or contradictory answers

The number of questions is not a lawful reason to refuse disclosure. What matters is whether the information is environmental, relevant, and in the public interest which ours clearly are.

3. “We encourage you to engage with us informally instead.”

Several responses have attempted to move the conversation away from formal, written EIR channels and into private email exchanges or social‑media messaging.

But the law is explicit:

When a request is made under the EIRs, the authority must respond under the EIRs.

Communities are entitled to written, accountable, disclosable answers not informal conversations that leave no public record.

4. “We have already answered this.”

In several cases, Severn Trent have claimed that information has already been provided when:

• the information was partial

• the answer did not address the question

• key documents were missing

• or the response created new contradictions

Follow‑up questions are not duplication they are a normal part of clarifying incomplete or unclear information.

Why this matters

When a water company refuses environmental information without evidence, it undermines:

• public participation

• community understanding

• scrutiny of pollution incidents

• and the legal right to environmental transparency

The EIRs exist precisely because communities cannot protect their rivers without access to the facts.

Where things stand now

Clean River Action has:

• submitted nine EIRs

• requested four internal reviews

• received multiple refusals that do not meet ICO standards

• and escalated the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for investigation

We will also be publishing every request, response, refusal, delay, and contradiction so the public can see the full picture.

Transparency isn’t optional it’s the law.

If you are passionate about rivers and want to help us make a difference, sign up today.

We cannot do this alone, our rivers need us.

Sarah

Clean River Action