The government body responsible for protecting the environment could be summoned by Uttlesford District Council to answer questions over reports of sewage pollution in the River Cam.

Concerns over different types of pollution in the River Cam, which runs through Uttlesford, were raised by local councillors at a meeting on December 6.

It was suggested the Environment Agency could be questioned over the alleged lack of enforcement of the level of nutrient pollution in the river, which can lead to the death of much of its wildlife.

An earlier statement from the Environment Agency responding to similar allegations from Uttlesford councillors said: “The Environment Agency is not aware of any breaches at Newport Treatment Works but will continue to monitor the site closely.”

A motion submitted by Councillor Vere Isham originally called for the council to ask Anglian Water and Thames Water to attend a meeting of the scrutiny committee.

However, this was withdrawn on the suggestion of fellow Councillor Richard Pavitt, who said there was “little point” in bringing water companies under scrutiny, as they would simply retell what they have previously told parliamentary committees.

Cllr Pavitt said: “We’ve had so many houses built here, our sewage treatment works are overwhelmed. But the people we should really bring to this council rapidly are the Environment Agency, because almost none of our sewage treatment works have been conditioned by the Environment Agency.”

He continued to say sewage treatment works in the district are up to 30 years out of date and were not being sufficiently regulated.

The councillor has previously tested the river himself and found many points exceed the limit of 0.2mg per litre of soluble phosphorus.

Cllr Isham’s motion originally made reference to the dumping of raw sewage, saying: “Dumping or discharging raw sewage into our natural river waterways, surely nobody can agree with. It’s got to be wrong.”

However, Cllr Pavitt claimed raw sewage is less of a problem in the district, with it only entering the River Cam occasionally from sewage overflows.

Consequently, the motion was withdrawn with a view for it to be reworded and brought back to the council in the new year.