Report to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Stephen Roscoe BEng MSc CEng MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Date: 17 November 2014
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN REGULATIONS 2007
EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC
INTO THE
UNITED UTILITIES
REVISED DRAFT WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN NOVEMBER 2013
Hearings held on 16 and 17 September 2014 Site Visit made on 16 September 2014
File Ref: APP/WRMP/14/3
CONTENTS
Section Page No
1 Preliminary Matters 3
Reasoning and Conclusions on Secretary of State’s Considerations:
2 The Thirlmere Option:
Background 8
Reasonable Expected Delivery Date 9
Potential Barriers 10
3 Feasible Alternatives to the Thirlmere Option:
Contingency Plan should the Thirlmere Option 11 become Undeliverable
Replacement for the Thirlmere Option at the Present Time 14
Additions to the Thirlmere Option to Reduce Reliance on 18 Ennerdale Water Abstraction Earlier
4 Progressive Reduction of Reliance on Ennerdale Water 18 Abstraction in Advance of the Thirlmere Option
5 Summary of Conclusions and Amendments to the Revised 26 Draft Water Resources Management Plan
6 Recommendation 29
Appendix Page No
A Appearances 30
B Documents 32
C Glossary of Abbreviations 42
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
CASE DETAILS
Report Ref: APP/WRMP/14/3 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan dated November 2013
The United Utilities revised draft Water Resources Management Plan (dWRMP) was made under section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991, as amended by section 62 of the Water Act 2003, and was published in November 2013. By letter dated 2 April 2014 to United Utilities, the Secretary of State called for an Inquiry or other Hearing in connection with the revised dWRMP in accordance with regulation 5(1) of the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007. By letter dated 16 June 2014 to United Utilities, the Secretary of State advised that the revised dWRMP would be subject to an Examination in Public (EiP) with Hearing sessions and also identified the considerations, in the West Cumbria Resource Zone (WCRZ), to be addressed. In a Defra Briefing, dated June 2014, the Inspector was asked to report to the Secretary of State to enable her to decide whether the revised dWRMP is both fit for purpose and meets the statutory requirements in relation to her considerations and the WCRZ or whether it could be deemed to be so if amended in ways identified during the EiP. The Inspector issued a set of written questions on 24 June 2014 to which responses were received and published prior to the Hearings. Hearings were held relating to Security of Supply matters on 16 September 2014 and relating to the River Ehen Water Environment on 17 September 2014. Summary of Recommendation: That the Secretary of State should direct that the revised draft WRMP be amended as set out at the end of this report.
Document references are shown in square brackets. 1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1.1 I have been appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SoS) to hold an Examination in Public (EiP) into the United Utilities (UU) revised draft Water Resources Management Plan (dWRMP) dated November 2013 [CD1.6] and to report with recommendations to her. The revised dWRMP resulted from consultation on an earlier dWRMP [CD1.2]. The UU Statement of Response (SoR) [CD1.8] describes how UU has taken account of the representations on the earlier dWRMP and the changes made in the revised dWRMP as a result of them. The SoS’s letter calling for an Inquiry or other form of Hearing [GEN2] related to the revised dWRMP, and this report therefore uses the revised dWRMP as its baseline.
1.2 Ms Helen Wilson was appointed as Programme Officer to assist with the procedural and administrative aspects of the EiP. She has played no part in the drafting of this report. Her work however made a significant contribution to the smooth running and timely completion of the EiP.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
1.3 The SoS’s letter to UU calling for an Inquiry or other Hearing in connection with the draft Plan [GEN2] gives the reasons for doing so. These can be summarised as follows:
Reasons for Exercising the Power
“The SoS has noted the risks to the security of supply in the West Cumbria Resource Zone (WCRZ), the on-going environmental damage to the River Ehen Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the potential for damage to the Ennerdale Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the timeframe proposed to deliver your preferred option to address those risks. The SoS considers that your revised dWRMP and SoR have not fully addressed these risks and that security of supply may only be achieved with unacceptable impacts on a protected environment and over too long a timeframe.”
Security of Supply Concerns
“The preferred option outlined in the revised dWRMP for the WCRZ will not be operational until 2024/25. This results in a period of 10 years where there is a risk to the security of supply in the event of a drought.”
“… there are concerns about the lack of resilience in abstractions from Ennerdale, lack of alternative supplies in a prolonged drought and the consequent risk to the environment and to customers. Whilst you have identified Thirlmere as your preferred option and have commenced detailed project planning, there remain a number of uncertainties to do with deliverability of this option, including planning permission and access rights.”
“Your SoR fails to make clear whether UU has considered all of the options available or whether it has selected the most appropriate options with regard to overall cost, timing, reliability and the environment. These concerns raise questions about the justification of the long term resource development proposals in the plan without further short term measures or continued work on alternatives. There remains a question over whether sole reliance on delivering Thirlmere, without stronger short term measures or work on alternatives leaves customers as well as the environment exposed to an unacceptable level of risk over too long a period of time, with no adequate contingency if Thirlmere takes longer than expected or cannot be delivered.”
Environmental Concerns
“The SoS believes that the risks to the Ennerdale SSSI and the River Ehen SAC during the period before the preferred option is operational have not been fully addressed in the revised dWRMP and SoR, or the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), and therefore UU has failed to meet all of the statutory requirements. In particular the SoS believes that the plan fails to comply with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.”
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
“The River Ehen SAC is designated primarily for the freshwater mussels found there and is currently assessed by Natural England (NE) to be in unfavourable, declining condition. Although the Habitats Directive makes provision for continued abstraction, this is provided certain tests are met, principally that there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest, no alternative solutions and compensatory measures are secured in order to ensure the coherence of the network of European sites is protected.”
“The SoR does not provide sufficient information or evidence to demonstrate that UU has investigated and is putting in place all options that could be used to reduce abstraction from Ennerdale Water before the preferred solution is delivered and that reliance on Ennerdale Water, and therefore the risk to the SAC is being reduced as quickly as is practicable.
1.4 The SoS’s letter to UU advising of the EiP [GEN 3] identified the particular considerations on which the SoS wished to be advised, as follows:
What is a reasonable expected delivery date for the Thirlmere option? (covered in Section 2 page 9 of this report)
What potential barriers exist to the delivery of the Thirlmere option? (covered in Section 2 page 10)
What feasible alternatives are there to the Thirlmere option, which could be delivered more quickly than that option? (covered in Section 3)
How soon could they be put in place? (covered in Section 3)
What environmental and cost impacts would they have? (covered in Section 3)
How much water would they yield? (covered in Section 3)
In relation to each of the possible feasible alternatives, would they be suitable for use:
As a contingency plan or (together with other options) part of a contingency plan in case the Thirlmere option proves undeliverable? (covered in Section 3 page 11)
As a replacement for the Thirlmere option (alone or together with other options) as the main solution for the WCRZ? (covered in Section 3 page 14)
As an addition to the Thirlmere option, in order to reduce reliance on abstraction from Ennerdale Water if available significantly sooner? (covered in Section 3 page 18)
What steps might feasibly be taken between now and the expected delivery date of the Thirlmere option so as to progressively reduce reliance on abstraction from Ennerdale Water until the expected delivery date of the Thirlmere option? (covered in Section 4 page 18)
any other things the Inspector deems to be relevant.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
1.5 In addition to the above matters, the Defra briefing [GEN1] also refers to matter relating to the Habitats Directive as follows:
The Inspector conducting the Inquiry or other Hearing may also wish to know that in relation to the legislative requirements contained in article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (implemented by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) the regulators have agreed a package of mitigation of and compensation for environmental damage, which is accepted to be suitable for the present situation. A plan of action has been agreed containing proposals for what are agreed to be suitable measures and implementation timescales for mitigation and compensation in relation to the on-going damage or risk of damage so far as it is possible to do so, although it will not necessarily fully mitigate or compensate for on-going damage, or for the potential impacts of a drought order, if needed.
Procedural Matters
1.6 I issued a set of 51 written questions, including requests for documents, on 24 June 2014 [GEN4]. Whilst these questions were directed at UU, they were published and other parties were given the opportunity to respond. UU and the Environment Agency (EA) responded to all 51 and 6 questions respectively [UU1 & EA3].
1.7 The Hearings were held on 16 and 17 September 2014 in the Forge Room at the Washington Central Hotel, Washington Street, Workington, Cumbria. I made an accompanied site visit on 16 September 2014 with representatives of UU and the EA. I heard no evidence or submissions on these visits. I also made an unaccompanied site visit to Thirlmere on the same day.
1.8 This report sets out my assessment of, and conclusions on, the SoS’s particular considerations on which she wishes to be advised together with other matters that I deem to be relevant. I then address recommendations. Details of those who appeared at the Hearings and EiP documents are at Appendices A and B. A glossary of abbreviations is included at Appendix C.
Statutory and Policy Context
1.9 As the Defra briefing indicates [GEN1], the preparation and maintenance of WRMPs became a statutory requirement in April 2007 under s.37 of the Water Industry Act 1991 as amended by s.62 of the Water Act 2003. This sets out the requirement for preparation and publication of a WRMP, describes what the WRMP should address and the need for review and revision. The Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 No. 727 set out the consultation process including the handling of representations and the companies’ statements of response as well as the power of the SoS to hold an Inquiry or Hearing. Water Resources Management Plan Directions1 provide further detail on additional matters to be addressed in
1 The Water Resources Management Plan Direction 2007; the Water Resources Management Plan (No.2) Direction 2007; the Water Resources Management Plan (No.2) (Amendment) Direction 2007; and the Water Resources Management Plan Direction (England) 2008. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
the WRMP. Other relevant statutes are addressed as necessary in the main body of this report.
1.10 In addition to the legislative framework, the Defra briefing [GEN1] indicates that Defra requires water companies to follow the joint Ofwat, EA, Defra and Welsh Government’s Water Resources Planning Guideline2. This guideline provides a framework for water companies to follow in developing and presenting their WRMPs. It sets out good practice in developing a plan, the various approaches to follow, the scope for flexibility within the plan, and the information that a plan should contain. It also states that “Companies should follow this guideline to ensure that their plans cover the requirements specified by the Water Industry Act 1991”.
Statements of Common Ground
1.11 The following Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs), setting out matters agreed as well as differences between the parties that were signatories to them, were submitted prior to the Hearings in response to my request [GEN3]:
UU and NE [UU2]
UU and the EA [UU3]
1.12 Following further agreement, UU and the EA submitted an additional SoCG prior to the Hearings [UU5].
Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment
1.13 The Water Resources Planning Guideline advises that a water company should determine whether its WRMP falls within the scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive3. The UU WRMP is required by legislative provision and is prepared for the management of water. It would form a part of the framework through which future development consents for infrastructure for the sourcing, storage and transfer of water would be assessed. Those projects are likely to fall within Annexes I and II to the Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment4 and may require assessment under the Habitats Directive5. In my view therefore, it is likely that the UU WRMP is a plan which requires an SEA under the SEA Directive. An SEA has been undertaken by UU [CD1.7a & CD1.7b] and has been used as an input to the decision making process within the revised dWRMP. There is no evidence before the EiP to suggest that the SEA is not legally compliant.
1.14 In relation to HRA, the Water Resources Planning Guideline advises that a water company must ensure that its plan meets the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. UU has carried out a screening assessment of the potential impacts of schemes that were included in the revised dWRMP [CD1.3 & CD1.4].
2 Water resources planning guideline: Environment Agency, Ofwat, Defra and the Welsh Government: June 2012: The guiding principles for developing a water resources management plan and The technical methods and instructions (2 documents) 3 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Directive 2004 (2001/42/EC) 4 85/337/EEC amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC 5 92/43/EEC www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
2. THE THIRLMERE OPTION Background
2.1 The revised dWRMP [CD1.6] includes the need to revoke the existing abstraction licence at Ennerdale Water, which is required to protect the Habitats Directive designated freshwater species within the River Ehen downstream of the abstraction [UU4 para1.2.1.4]. The revocation of the licence will result in a substantial supply-demand deficit in the WCRZ [UU4 fig3]. The scale of this deficit requires significant investment to secure a reliable water supply in the WCRZ and reduce risk to the future security of supply to an acceptable level.
2.2 Following an options appraisal [CD1.30], the revised dWRMP identifies three options to address this deficit. These are: the Thirlmere transfer; local sources or lowest cost; and the Kielder transfer. The Thirlmere transfer option comprises the pipeline transfer of untreated water from the Integrated Resource Zone (IRZ) to replace all sources within the WCRZ. The local sources option provides a selection of ground and surface water schemes, together with the necessary connectivity improvements, within the WCRZ. The Kielder transfer option comprises the pipeline transfer of untreated water from the Northumbrian Water area to replace all sources within the WCRZ.
2.3 The revised dWRMP then identifies UU’s preferred solution, the Thirlmere transfer option [CD1.6 secn10.2]. This preference was informed by a Level 2 assessment of each of the three options [UU4 para1.2.2.14]. It is broadly on the basis of the Thirlmere transfer option being a more comprehensive and deliverable solution than the local sources option and having an earlier completion and lower cost than the Kielder transfer option.
2.4 Further work has been carried out on and associated with the Thirlmere transfer option since the publication of the revised dWRMP and in response to the SoS’s decision to hold an EiP [GEN2]. This work has subsequently continued and has been explained in response to Inspector’s questions [UU1] and in the UU statement for the Hearings [UU4].
2.5 Following publication of the revised dWRMP and completion of the EA’s review of consents process, the EA confirmed the need to revoke the Ennerdale Water abstraction licence [UU4 para1.2.2.20]. The EA intends to revoke the licence as soon as is reasonably practicable and investigate options with regard to the timing of weir removal and the withdrawal of compensation flow [CD1.42]. The EA however agreed that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest to continue abstraction, with an appropriate package on compensatory measures, until the long term solution is implemented [CD1.34]. The EA notified the SoS under Regulations 62(5) and 64(2) of the Habitats Regulations 20106.
2.6 The compensatory measures package relates to the legislative requirements contained in article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (implemented by Habitats Regulations 2010). It has subsequently been
6 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
agreed between UU, the EA and NE and accepted to be suitable for the present situation [CD1.26].
2.7 Under the package, UU has committed to undertake certain ecological improvement measures. These are: the cessation of agricultural activities on UU’s land; the purchase of a farm adjoining the River Ehen and the cessation of agricultural activities on it; the funding of improvement works to address sources of nutrient pollution in Ennerdale Water; the funding of the artificial encystment, or formation of cysts, of freshwater mussel glochidia, or larvae, on salmon in the River Ehen (which is an integral part of the mussel life cycle [CD2.5 app1]); the funding of a River Ehen habitat management project officer until 2020/21; the revocation of the Crummock Water and Dash Beck abstraction licences no later than 2025; and the revocation of the Chapel House reservoir and Over Water abstraction licences no later than 2025.
2.8 Under the package, UU has also committed to undertake other improvement measures, although these are subject to further research and monitoring. These are: the funding of improvement works to address sources of risk to the River Ehen; the funding of improvement works on the River Brathay catchment which has been selected as a priority river for freshwater mussel recovery; the removal of abstraction-related infrastructure, including weirs, at Crummock Water and Dash Beck; the removal of abstraction-related infrastructure, including weirs, at Chapel House and Over Water; and the removal of a bleaching weir on the River Ehen. UU has also committed to undertake 8 River Ehen related research and monitoring projects in conjunction with the EA and NE. Progress has been made in accordance with the agreed package [CD1.40].
2.9 The compensatory measures package will be secured by a management agreement under Regulation 16 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 [CD1.40 secn5]. Reasonable Expected Delivery Date
2.10 From work carried out following the publication of the revised dWRMP, UU is of the opinion that March 2022 is a reasonable expected delivery date for the Thirlmere option [UU4 paras1.2.2.23 & 2.3.1.5]. This date has been brought forward from the 2024/25 date in the revised dWRMP due to early completion of ecological surveys using transitional funding, a rationalised planning permission process and the external assessment of the proposed implementation schedule by a major civil engineering contractor [UU1 question 11 response].
2.11 An independent assessment carried out by the EA concluded that the option could be delivered by October 2021. The EA however now accepts that the 6 month difference between the parties at this stage of the scheme is not material and therefore accepts that March 2022 is a reasonable expected delivery date [UU3 item5.3]. In view of the independent assessment and the agreement between the parties, I am satisfied that March 2022 is a reasonable expected delivery date for the Thirlmere option.
2.12 I therefore conclude that it is necessary to update the revised dWRMP in terms of the work that has been undertaken since the November 2013 version in relation to the Thirlmere option, as is sought by the EA [UU3
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
issue11]. This is particularly in relation to the PIU date. This would ensure that future monitoring could take place against a realistic baseline and would render the WRMP fit for purpose. Potential Barriers
2.13 UU has prepared a live project risk register [UU4 para2.4.1.6]. This does not indicate any areas of gross project risk [UU4 para 2.4.1.3]. Key risks are currently identified by UU as additional ecological surveys, unforeseen ground conditions and planning matters. I am of the view that the working relationship apparent during the EiP between UU, the EA and NE will be of assistance in mitigating risk due to additional ecological surveys in that it would provide for the early identification of any additional work in this regard.
2.14 Following the publication of the revised dWRMP, UU has assembled a project team, utilising transitional funding allocated by Ofwat, as expected by the EA [EA4 para5.6.1.1 & UU4 paras1.2.2.18 & 1.3.4.3]. The work of this team will assist in reducing risk on the Thirlmere option including risks relating to ground conditions.
2.15 UU is also due to agree a planning performance agreement in the near future with: the EA; NE; the Lake District National Park, as local planning authority; Cumbria County Council, who would project manage the agreement; and Copeland and Allerdale Borough Councils, as consultees [EA4 app2 para2.3.1]. At the River Ehen Water Environment Hearing, UU explained that a meeting to consider the final draft of this agreement had been set for 6 October 2014. I consider that such an agreement would reduce the planning risks identified by UU.
2.16 Concerns had been raised in respect of the landscape impact of a water treatment works at Thirlmere [EA4 para5.5.2]. This has been taken into account, and the proposal now incorporates a water treatment works outside the Lake District National Park [UU2 app1 issue13.2 & CD1.27b]. There are no other landscape objections from any statutory body. Furthermore, the pipeline route would be positioned along features such as roads for ease of access and to reduce landscape impact during construction [CD1.7b secn2.2.1]. In my view, this evidence suggests that planning risks due to landscape impact are capable of adequate mitigation during the project.
2.17 The SoS has identified uncertainties in relation to access rights as a potential source of risk on the project [GEN2]. The project risk register identifies a pipeline route access risk, but does not place it within the highest risk categories [CD1.41]. Land referencing has commenced to mitigate this risk, and the register recognises that early negotiation on the route and early land purchase for the water treatment works would be required. I am therefore satisfied that this risk has been sufficiently addressed at this stage in the project.
2.18 There are other risks identified on the register with similar risk categories to the key risks identified above [CD1.41]. These are the absence of third party, stakeholder, regulator or local authority support and adverse weather. The register however identifies mitigation actions for these risks which include detailed liaison with other parties to maintain support and
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
phasing of work to reduce weather impacts. There is therefore no reason to suggest that these other risks are significant or unusual in terms of the delivery of the project, and I consider that they have been satisfactorily addressed.
2.19 In view of all of the above points, I consider that risks in relation to the Thirlmere option, and thereby security of supply, have been sufficiently addressed. I am therefore satisfied that potential barriers have been addressed to a level of detail that is appropriate for this stage of the project and there is no need to amend the revised dWRMP in this regard.
3. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE THIRLMERE OPTION Contingency Plan should the Thirlmere option become Undeliverable
3.1 The EA had been concerned that UU had not identified a contingency plan should the preferred Thirlmere option in the revised dWRMP become undeliverable [UU3 app1 item7.2]. This difference between the parties has now however been resolved as a result of the UU response to my written questions, its EiP statement and discussion between the parties.
3.2 It has now been agreed that UU will prepare a contingency plan for West Cumbria water supplies on the best information currently available, for inclusion in its final WRMP [UU5 secn3]. The contingency plan will be based on the local sources option in the revised dWRMP and will remain at the level of detail to which the Thirlmere option was assessed in the revised dWRMP. The plan will not progress to the establishment of a project team or more detailed work unless the Thirlmere option proves undeliverable. Any contingency plan is likely to include the following solutions.
3.3 In terms of project timing, any prospect of the Thirlmere option being undeliverable would probably become apparent between 2016 and 2018 [UU4 para2.4.2.1]. Study work is currently underway to assess feasible levels of groundwater extraction in West Cumbria. The current work involves various stakeholders [UU3 app4] and is due to be completed by March 2015, although further work may then be carried out. By 2016 however, far more information will be available on feasible levels of groundwater extraction. These levels would potentially allow further extraction from the West and North Cumbria aquifers. Such extraction would be likely to include projects that would be similar to those within the lowest cost option in the revised dWRMP [CD1.6 secn10.3 & CD1.43 secns8.8 & 9.1].
3.4 The expected date for such groundwater schemes to be put in place is between 2023 and 2025 [UU4 para2.4.2.5]. Their cost is estimated at some £233m and design capacity or yield at some 60Ml/d [UU4 app5 WC05, 09 & 24c]. There is a potential impact from further West Cumbria aquifer abstraction on the lower River Ehen SAC subject to the level of aquifer connectivity, which is not yet adequately understood [CD1.43 appB secn9.1]. The distances between the proposed sources in the North Cumbria aquifer and the nearest European sites suggest that adverse impacts are unlikely, but this cannot be confirmed as it depends on aquifer
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
connectivity which is not yet adequately understood [CD1.43 appB secn9.1]. There is also the potential for impact on the SSSIs in this area but again this is not adequately understood.
3.5 A contingency plan would also be likely to include the variation of the compensatory measures package that has been agreed between UU and the EA. The package is shortly to be secured by a legal agreement [CD1.40 secn5 & EA4 para 5.8.1.1]. Any variation would require a new agreement and would be subject to HRA requirements. The implementation of the compensatory measures includes further study work in conjunction with various stakeholders, which would inform any variation [CD1.26 page4, CD1.40 secns1 & 6 and UU5]. The date at which any variation could be put in place and its environmental and cost impacts and effective yield are unknown at present due to the need for further study work.
3.6 The plan would also potentially make use of third party abstraction licences, including that of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority at Wastwater [SL1]. Negotiations and stakeholder involvement in this matter is continuing [UU5]. The anticipated date by which any Wastwater scheme could be put in place is July 2023 [UU4 app5 WC04]. Its cost is estimated at some £35.7m and design capacity or yield some 10Ml/d. The impact of the existing abstraction licence on the Wastwater SAC cannot be confirmed until the outcome of the EA's Habitats Directive Review of Consents is made known [CD1.43 appB secn8.5]. Any scheme is unlikely to impact on the River Ehen SAC provided the transfer pipeline route avoids the site.
3.7 The date by which the use of a third party abstraction licence downstream of the River Ehen SAC could be put in place and its cost is not known pending further negotiations [CD1.43 appB secn9.2]. A yield of up to 18Ml/d could be considered for transfer to the Ennerdale water treatment works. The licence has been subject to the Habitats Directive Review of Consents process, and its use may therefore be feasible.
3.8 Finally, a contingency plan could consider the Kielder transfer option that was investigated to Level 2 during the preparation of the dWRMP. This could provide a supply of 75Ml/d, would take 16 years to deliver at an estimated cost of £371m [CD1.6 figs26 & 34 & para10.2.2] and would avoid construction in the Lake District National Park.
3.9 From the above, it can therefore be seen that, whilst the contingency plan will remain at the level of detail that the Thirlmere option was assessed in the revised dWRMP, work to progress matters within it are continuing in various ways. If the Thirlmere option should become undeliverable and the contingency plan requires implementation, it would need to be the subject of a further WRMP in any event. In view of the further preparatory work being carried out however, it is envisaged that, apart from the Kielder transfer option, anticipated delivery of the plan would be between 2023 and 2025 [UU4 para2.4.2.5]. This is, in fact, comparable to the implementation date for the Thirlmere option.
3.10 The EA had expressed concern that Level 2 Project In Use (PIU) data had been identified for the West Cumbria aquifer boreholes scheme, WC05a, and not for other similar schemes [UU3 app1 item2.1]. This was however a typographical error, and should have been reported as Level 1 [UU4
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
para2.3.2.4]. The EA advised, at the Security of Supply Hearing, that it was satisfied with this explanation.
3.11 The determination of PIU dates for these, and indeed all other options within and relating to the WCRZ, have used a cumulative probability and statistical ‘norms’ approach [UU4 para2.3.1.4]. The costs of the various options have been assessed initially using a live and historic project database with staged methodologies to then improve confidence levels. The EA had expressed concerns that the costs of, and timescales for, the options had not been subject to sufficient independent benchmarking [UU3 app1 item2.1].
3.12 An independent consultant, Franklin and Andrews, has carried out UU wide data assurance and benchmarking verification work, using industry wide data, in relation to the ‘norms’ in use [UU4 para2.3.3.2]. There is however a lack of directly comparable projects. Whilst this is not ideal, I am satisfied that there is little more that could be done to address the matter. The verification work though shows that the approach in terms of cost and timescale estimates is what would be expected in this sector of infrastructure provision and at this stage of the development of the options. Furthermore, at the Security of Supply Hearing, the EA had no difficulty with this approach. I therefore can see no reason to disagree with the cost and timescale estimates provided by UU.
3.13 In terms of environmental impacts, a number of the above contingency options, particularly concerning groundwater sources, would require HRA and environmental impact assessment work. Whilst elements of these assessments have been addressed in the current study and screening work [CD1.43], any HRA and environmental impact assessment requirements would be more formally considered later in any development of the options.
3.14 In developing the above areas which would be likely to be included as part of a contingency plan, various other options have been considered as follows. The Thirlmere option PIU is currently forecast as 31 March 2022. The PIU dates for the feasible resource management options were revised in June 2014 [UU4 table3]. 16 of these schemes have PIU dates later than the Thirlmere option PIU date and therefore are not proposed for inclusion in the contingency plan [UU4 para2.4.2.5]. 6 of these schemes however have PIU dates before that of the Thirlmere option, and these have been considered as follows [CD1.43].
3.15 Workington desalination, WC10, has been retained as an option pending the outcome of further investigations into stakeholder acceptability and an engineering assessment that are to be undertaken. There are however risks in relation to the crossing of the River Ehen SAC and customer acceptability in view of the abstraction location within the Cumbria Energy Coast [UU4 table4 secn9.4 & CD1.43 secn9.4]. This option was screened out in 2012, but there is now a possibility of shorter lead in times. There is still however difficulties in that this option would be implemented within a very small desalination market that would carry increased non-delivery risks.
3.16 The August 2014 HRA Stage 3 Options Appraisal [CD1.43 secns8.13 & 8.11] revisited an earlier process in balancing the economics of supply and
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
demand in respect of final effluent supply to non-household customers and effluent reuse, WC23 and WC25, for the dWRMP [CD1.6 & CD1.30]. Wastewater treatment works final effluent supply to non-household customers, WC23a, would require discussions with non-household customers in relation to acceptability and viability. There is however little significant non-household demand in the Copeland demand area for viability, and the options would therefore result in little benefit in terms of water supply [UU4 para3.1.9.3 & app1 item8.13]. Furthermore, the transfer capacity of final effluent supply, WC23b and WC23c, would be too large for viability [UU4 app5]. Effluent reuse, WC25, carries high constructability and customer acceptability risks. These options were screened out in the options appraisal [UU4 paras3.1.9.3 & 3.1.10.3].
3.17 The automation of compensation flow control at Crummock Water, WC19 & WC24f, would allow abstraction to be increased by 2.7Ml/d [UU4 para3.1.4.8 & app1 item8.6]. It would require 16km of pipeline infrastructure into the Ennerdale water treatment works area, alterations to the treatment works and the associated costs [CD1.43 secn8.6]. UU therefore are not pursuing this option.
3.18 Other alternatives have been screened out in the revised dWRMP on a water available for use basis [UU4 para3.1.10.3 & CD1.6 secns8 & 10 & app9 & 10]. This screening has subsequently been revisited and re-examined [UU4 paras2.3.1.4 & 3.1.10.5, table3 & apps1 & 2 & CD1.43 appB]. This has resulted in the introduction of the Summergrove scheme as a measure in the progressive reduction of Ennerdale Water abstraction.
3.19 In view of all of the above points, I am satisfied that sufficient reasonable contingency alternatives to the Thirlmere option have been identified and that those screened out have been dismissed for good reason. Those identified as suitable have been cogently reasoned, and there is therefore a likely prospect that an appropriate contingency plan could be identified. UU has agreed with the EA that such a plan, based on the best information currently available, should be prepared and included within the final WRMP [UU5].
3.20 Whilst this matter has been agreed between the parties, it would be necessary for the SoS to direct that such a plan be included in the WRMP, notwithstanding that its implementation would probably require a new WRMP. This is because the inclusion of the contingency plan would render the WRMP fit for purpose and compliant with the Habitat Regulations 2010 in that alternative solutions would be secured to ensure that the coherence of the network of European sites was protected. Replacement for the Thirlmere Option at the Present Time
3.21 The Thirlmere option has been the subject of extensive work and consultation in conjunction with various statutory bodies and stakeholders, including the EA and NE. Support has also been voiced by the UU PR14 Business Plan Customer Challenge Group [UU4 paras 1.2.2.15 & 1.2.2.24 & fig2]. This group is an independent body, formed in 2012, which has been involved in reviewing and challenging UU’s approach to formulating its business plan [UU4 para1.2.2.7].
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
3.22 Ofwat has raised concerns in its Draft Determination of price limits on the UU revised business plan [OF3 & OF4]. This is in relation to the fact that the capacity of the Thirlmere transfer pipeline at 80Ml/d would be far greater than the Ennerdale Water revocation deficit of 33ml/d. The Thirlmere option passes in the Draft Determination assessment in respect of need and the robustness of the estimate. It fails however due to a lack of justification of the pipeline capacity even though the cost-benefit appraisal and analysis is said to be robust.
3.23 Ennerdale Water abstraction however only supplies some 45% of that required for the WCRZ [EA4 para2.4.2]. The Thirlmere transfer pipeline would fully supply the WCRZ from the IRZ, which is forecast to have an on-going significant surplus [UU4 para1.2.1.8]. This supply from the IRZ would give greater supply resilience in the WCRZ as it would be independent of the various SACs and SSSIs in the area. Moreover, any future industrial or commercial needs would be more easily satisfied [NE2 para4.1.5].
3.24 In particular, the supply from the IRZ would allow the surrender of the abstraction licence at Crummock Water. This would benefit the Derwent and Bassenthwaite SAC [NE2 para4.1.1]. NE currently has concerns in respect of the risks associated with abstraction to the limit of the licence, particularly under drought conditions [NE2 para4.1.3]. Indeed, the surrender of this licence is an element of the compensatory measures package [UU4 para3.1.8.1 & CD1.26 secn2.1 P9].
3.25 At Over Water, NE requires a hands-off lake level to prevent abstraction below this lake level, and the EA are to implement this from 1 April 2022 [NE2 para4.1.2]. The surrender of the Over Water abstraction licence would therefore bring substantial benefits to the Over Water SSSI, and this again is an element of the compensatory measures package [CD1.26 secn2.1 P10].
3.26 Whilst NE has identified these abstraction cessation benefits, the EA agrees that the Thirlmere option would give greater protection and result in improvement to several local waterbodies. This would be in line with the Water Framework Directive ambitions of the EA [EA4 para4.3.2].
3.27 In view of all of these points, whilst the UU submission to Ofwat may not have adequately justified the pipeline capacity, I am satisfied that, in terms of the EiP, the capacity has been adequately justified.
3.28 Objections and concerns in relation to the implementation of the Thirlmere option have also been submitted by third party organisations and individuals as follows.
3.29 At the Security of Supply Hearing, Mr Barnes, a local resident, expressed concerns that the revocation of the Ennerdale abstraction licence could be due to the possibility of nuclear waste being stored in West Cumbria. The EA and UU however responded that the decision on revocation had been taken solely on the basis of HRA considerations. From the evidence submitted to the EiP, I am satisfied that this has been the case.
3.30 At the Ehen River Environment Hearing, Mr Siddall, another local resident, expressed concerns that the consideration of the health of mussel beds was
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
not an exact science and that their health is naturally subject to a cyclical effect. He then went on to submit that the suggested decline was somewhat nebulous and could be generic and influenced by other factors. I accept, as do UU and the statutory bodies, that the understanding of the mussel population is not an exact science. I do however consider that there is convincing evidence, in an HRA context, that the River Ehen mussel population is in decline.
3.31 Mr Siddall referred to another mussel site in Cumbria, thereby questioning the significance of the River Ehen in this regard. The EA however advised that the population at this other site was far smaller and therefore of much less significance than that at the River Ehen.
3.32 Mr Siddall also suggested that the expenditure on the Thirlmere transfer option generated profit for UU and that a deeper intake could provide a greater level of River Ehen compensation flow at far less cost but that this would result in less profit. The cost estimates for the Thirlmere option have been satisfactorily justified in relation to this stage of the project, and the decision to favour the option has been taken with these costs in mind. Whilst Ofwat have some concerns over the extent of the project in relation to the River Ehen, it also provides other environmental benefits in terms of the cessation of abstraction in other sensitive areas. I am therefore satisfied that, for the purposes of the EiP and at this stage in the project, that the capital expenditure for the Thirlmere pipeline option is justified. In relation to the provision of a deeper intake to obtain additional compensation water, additional compensation water would not return the River Ehen to its natural state, which is necessary to return the SAC to a favourable condition. It therefore does not represent a long term solution that would be acceptable in HRA terms.
3.33 Mr Carr, a local resident, referred to some of the points made by Mr Siddall but also suggested that poachers had contributed to the decline of the mussel population. Whilst poaching is of course a risk to the population, there has been no evidence put to me to suggest that poaching is a problem, and I therefore do not identify it as a contributor to the decline.
3.34 Mr Carr added that insufficient water quality assessment had been undertaken to rule poor water quality out as a contributor to the decline. The EA is of the view however that water in the River Ehen is generally of excellent quality [CD2.1 secn5.5.6]. Whilst higher phosphate and nitrate levels have been recorded in the river, land acquisition and other measures within the compensatory package are being taken to reduce these. I am therefore satisfied that an adequate assessment of water quality has taken place and that appropriate remedial action is being taken in terms of water quality.
3.35 Mr Carr also suggested that further abstraction from Thirlmere would exacerbate the currently low levels at the reservoir. UU however were of the view that the increased abstraction would not reduce levels by any significant extent compared to the current abstraction regime, and I cannot see anything that would suggest otherwise.
3.36 EiP written representations were also made in response to the notification of the Hearings as follows. Windermere Town Council suggested that the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
EiP should seek specific actions in relation to the protection of Windermere lake levels [WTC1]. Windermere and Thirlmere lie within the UU IRZ, which includes both Manchester and Liverpool and extends from the Lake District to the Peak District. There is sufficient available capacity within the IRZ to offset any additional Thirlmere demand [UU4 para3.1.11.4]. There is also a high degree of connectivity within the IRZ, and this would allow Windermere abstractions and the lake level to be satisfactorily regulated and balanced in conjunction with any additional Thirlmere demand. I am therefore satisfied that there is no evidence that the Thirlmere option would have a detrimental effect on Windermere lake levels, and the matter is therefore outside the scope of this EiP.
3.37 Blindbothel Parish Council sought clarification of which body would decide that the £300m expenditure on the Thirlmere option was justified [BPC1]. Whilst UU is responsible for water supply in West Cumbria within the relevant legislation, it fulfils this responsibility within a WRMP that has to be directed to be published or amended, by the SoS. This EiP is part of the process by which the SoS considers the plan. In terms of the progression of the Thirlmere option, there is nothing in this EiP to suggest that it is not a reasonable outcome of the proper process.
3.38 The Friends of the Lake District expressed concerns over the impact of the Thirlmere option on the surrounding landscape [FLD2]. Following the implementation of the Thirlmere pipeline, the total abstraction would however still be within the licensed quantities and lake levels in a dry year. Moreover, lake levels would not be as low as they historically have been due to a lower demand and improved connectivity throughout the IRZ [CD1.8 secn3.5]. The pipeline route would also be positioned alongside features such as roads to reduce landscape impact and the proposed water treatment works has now been relocated outside the Lake District National Park area [CD1.7b secn2.2.1]. Furthermore, the concern over landscape harm from the Thirlmere option is not shared by the relevant statutory bodies, and I can see no reason to disagree.
3.39 The Friends of the Lake District also expressed concerns in respect of the option to utilise the Cogra reservoir. This is however an unlikely source under any scenario and one which would require a comprehensive environmental assessment.
3.40 Mr & Mrs Mawdsley expressed concerns in relation to the pipeline crossing watercourses and private water supplies and the adequacy of consultation [MAWD1]. Whilst the project is at an early stage, I am satisfied that the appropriate procedures would be put in place as the project progresses due to the regularity with which UU has to undertake projects such as this [UU4 para4.1.1.33].
3.41 Various representations were received in response to the initial dWRMP [EA1 – BACH1]. As a result of the above considerations, I am satisfied that, for the purposes of this EiP, there is sufficient evidence to justify the investment proposed in relation to the WCRZ in the revised dWRMP and associated measures. In terms of flood risk, at Thirlmere it is not intended that there would be any changes to the flood management operational rules [UU4 table1]. On the River Ehen, with the Ennerdale Water weir removed, there would be a very minor flood risk benefit [CD2.1 secn8.5].
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
3.42 In relation to demand management measures, I am content that they appear to be reasonable, sufficient and achievable [UU4 table1]. I have considered concerns in relation to Windermere lake levels, and in effect therefore their impact on flows from the lake, in response to the EiP written representation from Windermere Town Council, as above. Other matters were raised in these representations, but they lie outside the scope of this EiP.
3.43 In view of the submitted evidence and all of the above points, including options in relation to the contingency plan, I am satisfied that UU has considered all of the options available. I am also satisfied that the Thirlmere option represents the most appropriate preferred option to be identified within the revised dWRMP. There is therefore no need to identify any replacement for the option at this stage, as any future replacement would be addressed in terms of the contingency plan previously considered in this report. Additions to the Thirlmere Option to Reduce Reliance on Ennerdale Water Abstraction Earlier
3.44 The Thirlmere option comprises a single pipeline route from a source at Thirlmere to satisfy a demand at a new water treatment works in the WCRZ. The option therefore is not divisible, and there is no evidence of any elements of the option that could be advanced to reduce reliance on Ennerdale Water abstraction earlier. Furthermore, there are no suggested additions to the pipeline or the water treatment works that would reduce this reliance.
3.45 Measures have been identified that would reduce this reliance, but these are not physically or geographically related to the Thirlmere option. These measures are set out in the progressive abstraction reduction measures as described in Section 4 of this report.
4. PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION OF RELIANCE ON ENNERDALE WATER ABSTRACTION IN ADVANCE OF THE THIRLMERE OPTION
4.1 Further work has been carried out since the publication of the revised dWRMP in relation to the progressive reduction of Ennerdale Water abstraction. The associated reports have included an HRA Stage 3 Alternative Option Appraisal [CD1.43] and an Update on Ennerdale Abstraction Reductions 2013-2016 [CD1.12]. Current Abstraction Regime from 2012/13
4.2 In 2012/13, various measures were implemented to reduce abstraction from previous levels [UU4 para3.1.4.4 & fig6]. These followed a freshwater mussel stress event in 2012 [UU4 para3.2.2.2]. The River Ehen is subject to relatively low and constant, or flatline, river flows during the summer period. This is due to the nature of the compensation flows that are required to be discharged past the weir that impounds Ennerdale Water, at the head of the River Ehen. In the summer of 2012, artificial spates or freshets were artificially added to these low flatline river flows. It became apparent however that, instead of improving river flows by introducing some natural variation in them, the unnatural increases in river flow www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
exacerbated the stress that the mussels were experiencing due to the drier summer conditions. This was confirmed by the EA during the River Ehen Environment Hearing. The introduction of freshets was therefore discontinued and the new abstraction regime and its abstraction reduction measures introduced.
4.3 The measures included the re-zoning of supplies to part of the area formerly supplied by Ennerdale Water to supply them from Crummock Water [CD1.43 secn5.6]. This effectively resulted in the supply of 3Ml/d of treated water into the former Ennerdale Water treatment works area and reduced Ennerdale Water abstraction by this amount [UU4 para3.1.4.4 & CD1.12 secn2B].
4.4 The infrastructure in the area subject to the re-zoning could accommodate a transfer of up to 6Ml/d. The Ennerdale Water treatment works however cannot operate at a flow of less than 15Ml/d. To make use of the 3Ml/d re-zoning transfer, the demand in the former Ennerdale Water treatment works area must be at least 18Ml/d, which it currently is. In some critical periods when demand is greater than 21Ml/d, a transfer of 6Ml/d can be accommodated, but such periods are infrequent.
4.5 The 2012/13 abstraction reduction measures also included enhanced leakage control through improved detection [CD1.43]. This is estimated to have reduced demand in the Ennerdale Water treatment works area by 0.6Ml/d. An enhanced campaign to improve water efficiency is also estimated to have reduced demand by 2Ml/d [CD1.12 secn2A & CD1.43 secn5.1]. Future Abstraction Regime from 2015
4.6 From 2015, additional abstraction reduction measures are proposed [UU4 para3.1.4.4 & fig7]. These include four boreholes at South Egremont [CD1.12 secn2D & CD1.43 secn6.2] which are due for completion in the autumn of 2015 [UU4 para3.1.2.2]. The supply from these boreholes is estimated to reduce demand in the Ennerdale Water treatment works area by 10.8Ml/d.
4.7 The additional abstraction reduction measures also include the Summergrove scheme which effectively introduces a storage buffer within a service reservoir [CD1.12 secn2B & CD1.43 secn6.1]. This reservoir is currently connected to the Ennerdale Water treatment works by two pipelines, one of which would be used for flows into the storage and one from the storage. The provision of this storage would regulate and effectively lower the minimum flow at the Ennerdale Water treatment works to 12Ml/d. This would allow the use of the full re-zoning 6Ml/d from Crummock Water within the former Ennerdale Water treatment works area which is possible with the existing infrastructure. This is estimated to reduce demand in the Ennerdale Water treatment works area by a further 3Ml/d. The Summergrove scheme is due for completion in 2015/16 [UU4 para3.1.4.7].
4.8 The transfer of treated potable water by road tanker is also included within the further abstraction reduction measures [CD1.12 secn2C & CD1.43 secn6.3]. It would however be subject to constraints resulting from the highway network and a planning condition at the Ennerdale Water
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
treatment works that restricts the number of deliveries by tankers or heavy goods vehicles. This transfer mechanism would be brought into use during dry weather conditions, where 24 deliveries per day would be employed. Deliveries would increase to 76 per day after a drought order, which would trigger when the level of impoundment at Ennerdale Water was 1.7m below the crest of the weir.
4.9 At the Security of Supply Hearing, the EA advised that it was content that abstraction reduction had been adequately addressed at this stage of the process [EA4 secns3 to 5, particularly para5.4.3], and I can see no reason to disagree. In my view, notwithstanding that the EA had not specifically requested that these measures be included in the dWRMP [UU4 para1.2.2.17], these further abstraction reduction measures from 2015 should be included in the WRMP. This is because they represent identified projects which change delivery mechanisms under environmental constraints. This would render the WRMP fit for purpose and compliant with the statutory requirements in relation to the River Ehen SAC. Further Abstraction Reduction Measures
4.10 UU has also identified further abstraction reduction measures [UU4 table4]. These have previously been screened out, on a water available for use basis, but have now been reconsidered on an abstraction reduction basis in terms of the River Ehen environment [UU4 para3.1.12.1 & app1].
Historic and Future Changes to the River Ehen Environment
4.11 Before considering these further abstraction reduction measures, it is however appropriate to review the other changes that have and will take place to the River Ehen environment in addition to the future abstraction regime from 2015 described above. These other changes are as a result of: Environmental Damage Regulations (EDR) Notices served on 19 December 2012 [CD1.14a], 21 May 2013 [CD1.14b] and 28 April 2014 [CD1.14c] under the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009; the compensatory measures package under the Habitats Regulations 2010; work to the Ben Gill watercourse that was required following a consents review by the EA; and automated penstock valve control of the River Ehen compensation flow. Overall abstraction reduction is shown graphically in the UU statement to the Hearings and the Ennerdale Abstraction Reduction Update [UU4 fig13 & CD1.12 fig1].
4.12 The EDR Notices required increases in compensation flow in the River Ehen from 31.8Ml/d before December 2012 to between 60 and 80Ml/d depending on Ennerdale Water levels below the weir crest. This was to prevent the stress that appears to be experienced by the mussel population over periods of constant low river flows. The series of notices made relatively minor adjustments to the compensation flow compared to the pre-2012 situation.
4.13 The summer rainfall levels in 2013 were close to the long term average. The higher compensation flow required by the EDR Notice had been introduced by the summer of 2013, but there were no days when compensation flow levels dropped to 60Ml/d. It can be also seen that the number of days at 60Ml/d has been the subject of a generally reducing trend over time [UU4 app6 fig15].
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
4.14 In the summer of 2013, there were 25 days over which flows lay between 65 to 85Ml/d [UU4 app7 figs16 & 17]. This indicates that the EDR compensation flow regime had been able to keep compensation flows within this range without a low Ennerdale Water level trigger allowing a lower compensation flow. Furthermore, the measured values show continuous variation, with all values above 60Ml/d.
4.15 At the River Ehen Water Environment Hearing, NE were of the view that the current River Ehen compensation flows, of greater than 60Ml/d, should protect the freshwater mussel population, including their juveniles, in most circumstances. This can be seen in terms of 2013. NE acknowledged that there was still a degree of risk, but the 60Ml/d flow should be seen in the context of the pre-2012 31.8Ml/d compensation flows.
4.16 Ennerdale Water abstraction has reduced over time from 56.7 Ml/d in 1987/88, to 29.1Ml/d in 2012/13 [CD1.12 secn3]. It is also forecast to fall to 9Ml/d in 2015 and zero in 2022. These figures from 2012 onwards should be seen in comparison with a WCRZ demand forecast of 27.8Ml/d in the revised dWRMP [CD1.12 secn4]. It can therefore be seen that abstraction has reduced considerably since 1987, with recent and forecast reductions resulting from specific interventions.
4.17 From all of the above, I consider that it is very likely that average flow rates in the River Ehen, following the introduction of the EDR Notice compensation flows and existing abstraction reduction, have improved and will continue to improve to the benefit of the mussel population.
4.18 I have already described the compensatory measures package which, in my view, appears to be comprehensive [CD1.26 & CD1.40]. I consider that it is very important in that it will improve the quality of surrounding water input into the River Ehen, will assist the mussels in their life cycle and will improve understanding of this life cycle and required mussel habitat. This will be likely to increase the benefit from improved flow rate in relation to the mussel population.
4.19 Ben Gill is a fell side watercourse with a flashy flow character and a quick response to rainfall events. Since 1973 it has flowed through artificial structures into Ennerdale Water. It is currently being reinstated to its natural course which flowed into the River Ehen downstream of the Ennerdale Water impounding weir. This work was identified as a key requirement following an EA review of the Ennerdale Water abstraction consent [EA4 para5.8.1.4].
4.20 The reinstatement should be complete before winter 2014, and this will re-introduce some flow variation into the River Ehen from the summer of 2015 onwards. At the River Ehen Water Environment Hearing, the EA was of the view that it appears likely that flow variation is beneficial to the mussel population [CD2.1 secn1]. In addition, the natural and flashy flows will regularly clean the river bed and introduce fresh material to recharge the mussel beds. This will be of assistance to juvenile mussels who need a range of bed material including the more mobile gravels. In this regard, I consider that the Ben Gill reinstatement is very likely to improve the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 21 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
two important aspects of mussel habitat which are the flow characteristics of the River Ehen and its bed material.
4.21 Automated penstock valves at the Ennerdale Water abstraction point were commissioned in April 2014 [UU4 app1 secn5.5 & CD1.43 secn5.5]. These allow the release of compensation water to be more closely regulated in line with the EDR Notice which reduces over compensation. In turn, this allows more lake water to be retained which means that the lake is below weir crest level for a slightly shorter period. This reduces the periods over which the River Ehen does not experience the natural flow variation which appears to be of benefit to the mussel population. The retention of more water in the lake also has a minor beneficial impact on the Ennerdale SSSI due to reduced lake margin exposure and improved connectivity with the tributaries of the lake.
Mussel Population Health
4.22 Before considering the further abstraction measures, it is also appropriate to consider the predicted future health of the mussel population. Juvenile mussels currently comprise some 1% of the total River Ehen population [CD1.15 secn7.1]. This is an unsustainably low level compared to a favourable level that would be some 20%, and it is likely to have resulted from poor juvenile recruitment for approximately 40 years [CD1.34].
4.23 Removal of the Ennerdale Water weir after the cessation of abstraction would be likely to change river bed conditions. This carries a risk of short term negative impacts on the mussel population. In order to mitigate the impact of any changes, it will be necessary to ensure that the proportion of juveniles within the population is higher than at present, as advised by NE in the River Ehen Water Environment Hearing. The population would then be more likely to be able to accommodate any short term losses.
4.24 There is some evidence that the health of the existing mussel population has started to recover from the 2012 stress event [CD1.17g page21]. The consents review SAC Site Action Plan Addendum however suggests that, even under the best case scenario, the size of the mussel population will not generally start to increase until around 2060 [CD2.1 fig8]. This slow rate of change adds weight to NE’s position on the need to tread carefully and the fact that weir removal could take several years after the cessation of abstraction [NE2 para4.2.1]. Any further abstraction reduction is thus not the only factor in the return of the SAC to a favourable condition, and this also adds weight to the position of NE on diminishing returns in relation to mussel health [NE2 para4.3.3].
4.25 A sustainable recruitment level of around 5,000 juveniles per annum is critical to facilitate the recovery of the mussel population. The encystment project, which forms part of the compensatory measures package, is to start in 2015 [CD1.26 secn2.1 P5 & CD1.40 secn3.4]. This project will assist with juvenile recruitment, but also requires suitable juvenile habitat within the river, which is likely to be improved following the Ben Gill reinstatement.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 22 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
4.26 In terms of river bed conditions, it is also of note that predicted natural summer flow in the river in a dry or normal year generally lies below the current compensation level [UU6]. This is apart from flash flood spikes some of which are currently accommodated within the lake and do not add to the compensation flow. The work at Ben Gill may however add some variability to summer flows [NE2 para4.3.2].
4.27 River bed conditions, particularly in terms of cleanliness and lack of sediment, algae and turbidity are critical to the health of the mussel population [UU4 table5 & CD1.16 pages3 & 4]. These conditions are regulated by river velocities at bed level. These velocities are related to the profile of the river bed as well as river flow levels, and the minimum flow levels may therefore be less important than the bed velocities [CD1.17g page21 & fig10]. In my opinion, the fact that various factors are responsible for river bed conditions adds weight to the NE view that further abstraction reductions in advance of the Thirlmere transfer may have negligible benefit.
4.28 The EA had concerns in respect of the peer review that UU had carried out on their mussel studies [EA4 app2 para3.1.4]. The author of the peer review has now clarified interpretations of bed conditions in the review and, in the River Ehen Environment Hearing, the EA advised that the content of the peer review was now agreed.
4.29 In summary therefore, I consider that the cessation of abstraction is not the sole environmental goal. It is more part of a process of river environment improvements to facilitate the removal of the weir and the return of the River Ehen SAC to a favourable condition under natural flows. This is a process about which, at the Hearing, NE warned of the need to tread carefully, bearing in mind the unsustainable characteristics of the population at present.
4.30 With this in mind, at the Hearing, NE stated that further abstraction reduction measures would be likely to be the subject of diminishing returns in terms of reductions in the number of flatline river flow days per year and improved mussel health. Benefit to the mussel population would therefore be likely to be negligible and a matter for conjecture.
4.31 The EA’s position is that there is a ‘need to act with utmost urgency to address environmental issues affecting the mussel population’ [CD2.1 secn5.2.1.2]. This is however taking place, with the environmental issues being addressed in a number of ways, such as with the EDR Notice protecting the population in most circumstances and then the additional abstraction reductions, compensatory measures, Ben Gill reinstatement and automated penstocks protecting the population further. It is also the case that many of these measures are complementary. The cessation of abstraction should therefore be seen in the context of the River Ehen environment as a whole.
4.32 At the River Ehen Water Environment Hearing, both the EA and NE suggested that the balance between the social and economic cost and the environmental benefit was critical in whether measures should proceed or not. The Defra guidance also suggests that where the expense of an alternative is likely to be unreasonable in relation to the potential
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 23 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
environmental benefit, then it would be unreasonable to consider the alternative further. This stance is supported by Ofwat [OF3 & 4] and the Customer Challenge Group [UU4 para1.2.2.24]. It is against the background of all of these matters that the justification for further abstraction reduction should be considered.
Further Abstraction Measures
4.33 I now turn to the further abstraction reduction measures themselves. General demand management is an on-going activity in the revised dWRMP which has reduced, and may further reduce, Ennerdale abstraction, although full pre-Thirlmere forecasts have not been provided [CD1.12 secn2]. The activity is already included in the revised dWRMP, and therefore no amendment is required in this regard.
4.34 The development of new boreholes in the West Cumbria aquifer is currently the subject of investigation by the EA [CD1.43 secn9.1 & CD1.12 secn2D]. Whilst any overall development of these boreholes is expected between June 2021 and December 2022, and therefore not of benefit in advance of the Thirlmere option, a fifth borehole at South Egremont could be brought into use by 2017/18 [UU4 para2.5.4.1]. This would reduce abstraction from Ennerdale Water by 3Ml/d.
4.35 Whilst this would be a material reduction, it would result in little change to the character of summer river flows compared to the situation that would result from four South Egremont boreholes [UU6 SE11 & SE14@Q35]. Furthermore, with either five or four boreholes, there is still a marked difference between these scenarios and the projected natural river flow without the weir [UU6 natural].
4.36 The fifth borehole is however partly in place [UU4 para3.1.2.4]. The associated South Egremont pipeline and pumps have been sized to accommodate it, but the borehole collapsed during construction. The borehole would cost approximately £1m to rehabilitate [CD1.43 secn6.2]. It would reduce the estimated Ennerdale demand to 6Ml/d [UU4 fig13] but, in the Security of Supply Hearing, UU advised that no formal cost benefit analysis had been carried out.
4.37 It is of note however that the average number of days per year at which river flows are estimated to be at 60Ml/d or less is 11 days with four boreholes [UU6] and five days with the weir in place but no abstraction [UU4 para4.1.1.6]. Any improvement due to the fifth borehole would reduce this average number of days, but the resulting number of days would be likely to lie closer to the 11 days rather than the five days.
4.38 All of the above suggests to me that the value of the fifth borehole is not significant in terms of the River Ehen environment. In the context of the existing improvement to the river environment, I therefore do not consider that the fifth borehole has been adequately justified for inclusion in the WRMP in this regard.
4.39 UU is however of the opinion that, although the fifth borehole would possibly not be normally operated in future, it would provide a degree of drought resilience to the network. On this basis, whilst I am not satisfied
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 24 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
that the fifth borehole has been justified in terms of the river environment, I am not of the view that it should be excluded from future plans.
4.40 The possibility of utilising further third party supplies has recently been identified [UU4 para3.1.12.1 & table4 secns9.7 & 9.8 & CD1.43 secns9.7 & 9.8]. These would comprise raw water from a third party Brow Top service reservoir to the Ennerdale water treatment works and treated water from Brow Top to the UU Calder service reservoir. The transfer of these third party supplies would however be likely to require new pipeline infrastructure at a currently unknown cost. Whilst UU is content to still consider this option, I do not consider, on the basis of the information available at present, that the use of these third party supplies is justified for inclusion in the WRMP in terms of the River Ehen environment.
4.41 New abstraction downstream of the mussel beds on the River Ehen has been screened out due to a potential impact on the River Ehen SAC [UU4 table4 secn9.2 & CD1.43 secn9.2]. There is however an existing abstraction licence which may be available for trading. This alternative measure is under consideration by UU, but I do not consider that it can be justified for inclusion in the WRMP as a further abstraction reduction measure on the basis of present limited information.
4.42 Whilst the use of the Cogra impounding reservoir is still a measure under consideration, UU is of the view that it is an infeasible option for abstraction reduction. This is due to the lead in time, the extent of infrastructure work required, a potential impact on the River Derwent & Bassenthwaite SAC, and the 40 year break in abstraction [UU4 table4 secn9.3 & para3.1.1.2, CD1.12 secn2E & CD1.43 secn9.3].
4.43 Desalination at Workington has already been considered under the Thirlmere feasible alternatives. In view of the anticipated PIU date of 2020 [UU4 table4 secn9.4 & CD1.43 secn9.4], I do not consider that it can presently be justified for inclusion in the WRMP as a pre-Thirlmere abstraction reduction measure.
4.44 At the Security of Supply Hearing, UU advised that the shipping of potable water through the port of Workington [UU4 table4 secn9.5 & CD1.43 secn9.5] and groundwater abstraction from the Florence mine [UU4 table4 secn9.6 & CD1.43 secn9.6] had now been screened out as options to further reduce abstraction at Ennerdale in advance of delivery of the Thirlmere option.
4.45 In view of all of the above points, I am of the opinion that, whilst further abstraction reduction measures are under consideration, the inclusion of specific further abstraction reduction measures in advance of the Thirlmere option has not been justified for inclusion in the WRMP. This is in the context of the historic and anticipated future changes to the River Ehen environment and the health of the mussel population. These future changes would be as a result of the various activities already incorporated in the abstraction reduction, EDR and compensatory measures strategies already agreed with the statutory bodies. Amendment to the revised dWRMP in this regard is not therefore required. UU is likely to proceed with the installation of the fifth South Egremont borehole, but UU is of the opinion that this is justified in terms of drought resilience.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 25 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
5. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED DRAFT WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
5.1 In summary, I conclude as follows. Thirlmere Option Reasonable Expected Delivery Date
5.2 In view of the independent assessment and the agreement between the statutory bodies, I am satisfied that the UU PIU date of March 2022 represents a reasonable expected delivery date for the Thirlmere option. I therefore conclude that it is necessary to update the revised dWRMP in terms of the work that has been undertaken since the November 2013 version in relation to the Thirlmere option, particularly in relation to the PIU date. This would ensure that future monitoring could take place against a realistic baseline and would render the WRMP fit for purpose. Potential Barriers
5.3 I can see no reason to disagree with the potential barriers to the delivery of the Thirlmere option that have been identified by UU or the view that these are not gross project risks. In my view, the areas of risk identified are therefore very unlikely to become barriers to the completion of the project, and any impacts of these areas of risk are likely to only affect completion dates and cost. The areas of risk identified are: additional ecological surveys; unforeseen ground conditions; planning matters; landscape impact; the absence of third party, stakeholder or local authority support; and adverse weather. Uncertainties in relation to access rights, as identified by the SoS, have been identified within a lower category of risk. In my opinion, the risk areas are being satisfactorily addressed at this stage of the project, and adequate systems appear to be in place to keep them under review over the life of the project. I therefore conclude that there is no reason to amend the revised dWRMP in this regard. Feasible Alternatives to the Thirlmere Option Contingency Plan should Thirlmere Option become Undeliverable
5.4 In my view, the feasible alternatives to the Thirlmere option, in terms of a contingency plan should the Thirlmere option become undeliverable, would be likely to include areas of work as follows. Further groundwater extraction from the West and North Cumbria aquifers would be likely to include projects that would be similar to those within the lowest cost option in the revised dWRMP. The expected date by which such groundwater schemes could be in place is between 2023 and 2025 at an estimated cost of £233m and with a yield of some 60Ml/d. The schemes would be subject to HRA where necessary.
5.5 UU anticipate that the use of third party abstraction licences would be considered following negotiation and any agreements. Timings, yields and environmental and cost impacts are therefore unknown at present, although it is estimated that the Wastwater scheme could be put in place by July 2023 at a cost of £35.7m with a yield of 10Ml/d.
5.6 Should local alternatives not provide an adequate resource, the Kielder transfer option would be considered. The revised dWRMP anticipates that
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 26 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
this option would take some 16 years to implement at an estimated cost of £371m. It could provide a capacity of 75Ml/d, which would be similar to that proposed for the Thirlmere transfer option. It would be subject to its own HRA, but would avoid construction in the Lake District National Park.
5.7 Any contingency plan would also be likely to include the variation of the compensatory measures package to reflect any changes to predicted flows in the River Ehen. Delivery dates, costs and effective yields are unknown pending further studies.
5.8 I therefore conclude that it is necessary to amend the revised dWRMP to include a contingency plan, in accordance with the SoCG between UU and the EA, for West Cumbria water supplies in the event that the Thirlmere option becomes undeliverable. The implementation of such a plan would, in all probability, require a new WRMP. The identification of a contingency plan, and the tipping point in time at which it should be implemented, is however relevant and important in terms of security of supply and would render the WRMP fit for purpose. It would also make the plan compliant with the Habitats Regulations 2010 in that alternative solutions would be secured to ensure coherence of the network of European sites. Replacement for the Thirlmere Option at the Present Time
5.9 In view of the submitted evidence, I am satisfied that the Thirlmere option represents the most appropriate option to address the cessation of the Ennerdale water abstraction licence. Any replacement for the Thirlmere option would therefore occur as part of a contingency plan, as identified above. I therefore conclude that there is no reason to amend the revised dWRMP in this regard. Additions to the Thirlmere Option to Reduce Reliance on Ennerdale Water Abstraction Earlier
5.10 There is no evidence of any elements of the Thirlmere option that could be advanced to reduce reliance on Ennerdale Water abstraction earlier. Furthermore, there are no suggested additions to the option that would reduce this reliance. I therefore conclude that there is no reason to amend the revised dWRMP in this regard. Progressive Reduction of Reliance on Ennerdale Water Abstraction in Advance of the Thirlmere option
5.11 Additional abstraction reduction measures are proposed to be implemented by 2015. These comprise four boreholes at South Egremont, use of the Summergrove service reservoir as a storage buffer for the Ennerdale water treatment works and the transfer of potable water by road tanker during dry weather conditions. I am satisfied that all of the above measures would be appropriate in relation to the progressive reduction of reliance on Ennerdale Water abstraction. The abstraction reduction measures will be secured by a management agreement under Regulation 16 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010.
5.12 It is however necessary that actual events and performance are subsequently assessed against a realistic current baseline, notwithstanding that the EA had not specifically requested that these measures be included in the dWRMP [UU4 para1.2.2.17]. I therefore conclude that it is necessary
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 27 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
to amend the revised dWRMP to include the additional abstraction reduction measures which are identified above and are set out in UU statement to the EiP [UU4 fig7]. This would render the WRMP fit for purpose and compliant with the statutory requirements in relation to the River Ehen SAC.
5.13 A fifth borehole at South Egremont is also proposed to be brought into use. Whilst it will assist in reducing reliance on Ennerdale Water abstraction, I cannot see sufficient justification for this borehole in terms of the reduction of reliance on this abstraction. This is in the context of the historic and anticipated future changes to the River Ehen environment and the health of the mussel population.
5.14 A similar situation applies to the other further reduction measures identified by UU which could be delivered in advance of the Thirlmere option. I am therefore satisfied that all options that, at present, could be reasonably used to reduce abstraction have been, and are being, put in place. I thus cannot see the need for the revised dWRMP to be amended in this regard in order for it to be fit for purpose. UU intend however to proceed with the borehole as it will also improve network resilience. On this basis though, the consideration of the fifth borehole lies outside the scope of the SoS’s considerations.
5.15 All matters that I deem to be relevant in responding to the SoS’s considerations are addressed in this report.
The remainder of this page has intentionally been left blank
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 28 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
6. RECOMMENDATION
6.1 I recommend that the Secretary of State should direct United Utilities Water PLC that its Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 be amended as follows:
a. The plan should be updated in terms of the work that has been undertaken on the Thirlmere transfer option since the November 2013 version of the plan, particularly in relation to the project in use date;
b. The plan should be amended to include a contingency plan, in accordance with the SoCG between UU and the EA, for West Cumbria water supplies in the event that the Thirlmere option becomes undeliverable; and
c. The plan should be updated in terms of the additional abstraction reduction measures relating to Ennerdale Water in advance of the Thirlmere option that are identified in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.9 of this report.
Stephen Roscoe
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 29
APPENDIX A - APPEARANCES
At the Security of Supply Hearing on 16 September 2014
For United Utilities Mr Mark Smith Water Resources Manager MSc, MA (Cantab), MIAM, MCIWEM, CWEM, CEnv Dr Richard Blackwell Supply Demand Manager MPhys, PhD Mr Oliver Andrews Engineering Delivery Manager MEng (Hons), CEng, MIChemE Ms Grace Martin Hydroecologist BSc (Hons) Mr Phil Merrin Groundwater Manager BSc MSc Mr John Hilton Project Director, West Cumbria BEng (Hons), Dip.M.U, MIoD
For The Environment Agency Mr Richard Wood Project Manager, Environment BSc (Hons), MCIWEM C.WEM Programme Team, Cumbria & Lancashire Mr Nick Webb Solicitor MA, LLM (Env) Mr Mike Stokes Technical Specialist BSc, MSc, CEnv
Individuals Mr Paul Barnes Resident of Braithwaite
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
At the River Ehen Water Environment Hearing on 17 September 2014
For United Utilities Mr Mark Smith Water Resources Manager MSc, MA (Cantab), MIAM, MCIWEM, CWEM, CEnv Dr Richard Blackwell Supply Demand Manager MPhys, PhD Mr Oliver Andrews Engineering Delivery Manager MEng (Hons), CEng, MIChemE Ms Grace Martin Hydroecologist BSc (Hons) Mr Phil Merrin Groundwater Manager BSc MSc
For The Environment Agency Mr Richard Wood Project Manager, Environment BSc (Hons), MCIWEM C.WEM Programme Team, Cumbria & Lancashire Mr Nick Webb Solicitor MA, LLM (Env) Ms Gail Butterill Technical Specialist BSc (Hons)
For Natural England Dr Paul Glading Senior Adviser, Water Sector BA PhD Mr David Harrison Principal Solicitor Ms Alison McAleer Lead Adviser – Water Sector BSc MSc Mr Gavin Measures Technical Specialist BSc (Hons)
Individuals Mr David Siddall Resident of Cockermouth Mr Paul Carr Resident of Cockermouth
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 31 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
APPENDIX B - DOCUMENTS
General Documents
GEN1 Briefing from Defra for the Inspector running the Inquiry into United Utilities Draft Water Resources Management Plan
GEN2 Letter from Defra to United Utilities dated 2 April 2014 in response to their letter of 11 November 2013 (CD1.5)
GEN3 Letter from Defra to United Utilities dated 16 June 2014 regarding the timetable and arrangements for the Examination in Public of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
GEN4 Inspector’s Initial Questions to United Utilities dated 24 June 2014
GEN5 Agenda for the 16 September 2014 Hearing
GEN5a Revised agenda for the 16 September 2014 Hearing
GEN6 Agenda for the 17 September 2014 Hearing
GEN7 Letter from the Programme Officer to all respondents dated 21 July 2014
GEN8 Email exchange between the Environment Agency and the Programme Officer regarding clarification Agenda Item 9 for the River Ehen Water Environment Hearing
Core Documents
Provided by United Utilities
CD1.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment of United Utilities Draft Water Resources Management Plan, February 2008
CD1.2 Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2013
CD1.3 United Utilities Habitats Regulations Assessment of Water Resources Management Plan, March 2013
CD1.4 Addendum to United Utilities Habitats Regulations Assessment of Water Resources Management Plan, November 2013
CD1.5 Letter from United Utilities to Defra dated 11 November 2013, regarding the Statement of Response and a Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan
CD1.6 Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan, November 2013
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 32 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
CD1.7a Strategic Environmental Assessment of United Utilities Draft Water Resources Management Plan, March 2013
CD1.7b Strategic Environmental Assessment of United Utilities Draft Water Resources Management Plan, Environmental Report Addendum, November 2013
CD1.8 2013 Draft Water Resources Management Plan – Statement of Response
CD1.9 Environment Agency Advice Report on United Utilities Statement of Response, 17 January 2014
CD1.10 Revised Draft Drought Plan 2014
CD1.11 Water Industry Act 1991- sections 76 to 76c
CD1.12 Update on Ennerdale Abstraction Reductions 2013-2016 – June 2014
CD1.13 Annual Water Resources Review April 2013 to March 2014
CD1.14a Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009, Regulation 14(2) Notice – 19 December 2012
CD1.14b Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009, Regulation 14(2) Notice – 21 May 2013
CD1.14c Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009, Regulation 14(2) Notice – 28 April 2014
CD1.15 Environmental Monitoring of the River Ehen freshwater mussel population in 2012
CD1.16 Peer Reviewed Report on the 2012 River Ehen freshwater mussel surveys
CD1.17a Stress Testing of the Freshwater Mussel in the River Ehen, Summary of Results on 29 January 2013
CD1.17b Stress Testing of the Freshwater Mussel in the River Ehen, Summary of Results on 26/27 March 2013
CD1.17c Stress Testing of the Freshwater Mussel in the River Ehen, Summary of Results on 15 April 2013
CD1.17d Stress Testing of the Freshwater Mussel in the River Ehen, Summary of Results on 30/31 May 2013
CD1.17e Stress Testing of the Freshwater Mussel in the River Ehen, Summary of Results on 25-28 July 2013
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 33 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
CD1.17f Stress Testing of the Freshwater Mussel in the River Ehen, Summary of Results on 8-9 November 2013
CD1.17g Stress Testing of the Freshwater Mussel in the River Ehen, Summary of Results on 15-19 March 2014
CD1.18 Health Screen of Pearl Mussels, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, 20 May 2013
CD1.19 The National Rivers Authority and North West Water Limited – Management Agreement relating to Ennerdale, 18 May 1992
CD1.20 Water Resources Act 1991 (1991 c 57)/Part II Water Resources Management (ss 19-81)/20 Water resources management schemes
CD1.21 Final Water Resources Management Plan, September 2009
CD1.22a Copeland DMZ, Engineering Level 2 Report, Issue Ref. 412 – West Cumbria Strategy: Kielder Option
CD1.22b Copeland DMZ, Engineering Level 2 Report, Issue Ref. 412 – West Cumbria Strategy: Local Sources
CD1.22c Copeland DMZ, Engineering Level 2 Report, Issue Ref. 412 – West Cumbria Strategy: Local Sources (Superworks)
CD1.23 West Cumbria Strategy – Accelerated Stretch Schedule – 2 June 2014
CD1.24 Narrative to Project schedule (“Accelerated Stretch Schedule”) 2 June 2014
CD1.25 Water Resources Planning Guideline, August 2013
CD1.26 Proposed package of compensatory measures for adverse effects on the River Ehen SAC, 28 February 2014
CD1.27a Thirlmere Pipeline Solutions
CD1.27b Map – West Cumbria Pipeline Project
CD1.28 Newby Bridge Weir – Directions for Operation of the Fishery Sluice – Agreement between the Environment Agency and United Utilities Water Plc
CD1.29 Additional context for Company response to Inspector’s questions, July 2014
CD1.30 Revised draft Water Resources Management Plan Technical Report Options Appraisal, United Utilities, November 2013
CD1.31 HRA Stage 3 Alternative Option Appraisal, Grontmij, July 2013 live draft
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 34 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
CD1.32 Over Water Abstraction Licence (Licence number 2775006S018), issued 27 June 2014
CD1.33 Letter from Steve Mogford, United Utilities, to Steve Moore, Environment Agency, 16 October 2013
CD1.34 Summary of IROPI notification to Secretary of State
CD1.35 Final Drought Plan 2014, United Utilities, July 2014 (pages 67, 161, 162)
CD1.36 Revised draft Water Resources Management Plan Technical Report Yield and Supply Capability, United Utilities, November 2013
CD1.37 Derwent and West Cumbria abstraction licensing strategy, Environment Agency, February 2013
CD1.38 Eden and Esk abstraction licensing strategy, Environment Agency, February 2013
CD1.39 Habitats and Wild Birds Directives: guidance on the application of article 6(4) Alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest and compensatory measures, Defra, December 2012
CD1.40 River Ehen compensatory measures update, United Utilities, June 2014
CD1.41 Thirlmere pipeline project risk register
CD1.42 Letter from Environment Agency 10 January 2014
CD1.43 Drought Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Stage 3 Alternative Option Appraisal report, August 2014, Final draft for Examination in Public
CD1.44 Life in UK Rivers publication: Skinner A, Young M & Hastie L (2003). Ecology of the Freshwater Mussel. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 2 English Nature, Peterborough
CD1.45 An investigation into relationships between velocity, bed shear stress and flow requirements in the River Ehen, Atkins, May 2014
CD1.46 Study to age the population of freshwater mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) in the River Ehen, Cumbria, Malacological Services (2013)
CD1.47 Detailed Baseline Geomorphological Assessment of the River Ehen, Jacobs, December 2012
CD1.48 Nutrients and algae in the Upper River Ehen and their implications for freshwater mussels, Bowburn Consultancy (2013)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 35 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
CD1.49 Drinking Water Inspectorate guidance to water companies on the application of Regulation 15 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 – October 2012
Provided by the Environment Agency
CD2.1 River Ehen SAC: SAC Site Action Plan Addendum Ennerdale abstraction licence No. 2774003008, December 2013
CD2.2 Notes regarding the redaction of The Habitats Directive Review of Consents, River Ehen SAC Site Action Plan Addendum, for Ennerdale Abstraction licence No 2774003008. December 2013 – July 2014
CD2.3 North West River Basin District: Challenges and choices - Summary of significant water management issues. A consultation, June 2013
CD2.4 Letter dated 9 October 2013 from the Environment Agency to United Utilities regarding water supply-demand options for West Cumbria
CD2.5 Appendix 1 – Mussel life cycle
CD2.6 River basin management planning: Challenges and choices consultation Response document 2014
CD2.7 Letter dated 7 May 2014 from the Environment Agency to Sellafield Ltd regarding plans for water abstraction in support of current and future activities at Sellafield.
CD2.8 Minutes of meeting - UU draft Water Resources Management Plan (dWRMP) 12 July 2013
CD2.9 Water resources planning guidelines, June 2012
Pre-Examination Submissions
EA1 Response by the Environment Agency to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
EA2 Email from the Environment Agency to Ofwat dated 28 January 2014
NE1 Response by Natural England to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
OF1 Response by Ofwat to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
OF2 Email from Ofwat to Defra dated 23 January 2014
FLD1 Response by Friends of the Lake District to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 36 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
WLC1 Response by Windermere Lake Cruises Limited to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
WLU1 Response by Windermere Lake User Forum to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
HET1 Response by Holker Estate Trust to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
CCW1 Response by the Consumer Council for Water to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
CCW2 Response by the Consumer Council for Water to the notification by United Utilities of the Examination
NDC1 Response by The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Sellafield Ltd to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
BEC1 Response by Britain’s Energy Coast to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
WCRT1 Response by West Cumbria Rivers Trust to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
REDFA1 Response by River Eden and District Fisheries Association to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
DOA1 Response by Derwent Owners’ Association to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
CFAG1 Response by Cleator Flood Action Group to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
KFAG1 Response by Keswick Flood Action Group to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
BCC1 Response by Butterfly Conservation Cumbria to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
BUG1 Response by Buglife to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
LDNPA1 Response by Lake District National Park Authority to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
MCC1 Response by Manchester City Council to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
ABC1 Response by Allerdale Borough Council to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
SBPC Response by St Bees Parish Council to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 37 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
SJCWP1 Response by St John’s, Castlerigg and Wythburn Parishes to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
PM1 Response by P McCartney to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
DM1 Response by D Millington to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
JB1 Response by Joseph Bowman to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
RDS1 Response by Rod Donington-Smith to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
OB1 Response by Oliver Barratt MBE to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
GPS1 Response by G P Smith to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
GCB1 Response by Graham Chaplin-Brice to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
MES1 Response by Miss E Steele to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
NRW1 Response by Natural Resources Wales to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
NRW2 Response by Natural Resources Wales to the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
CRT1 Response by the Canal & River Trust to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
WT1 Response by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
PWS1 Response by Peel Water Services Ltd to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
GAF1 Response by Garstang Against Fracking to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
GARD1 Response by the Group Against Reservoir Development to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
SLDC1 Response by South Lakeland District Council to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 38 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
PDNPA1 Response by the Peak District National Park Authority to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
SHC1 Response by St Helens Council to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
CWCC1 Response by Cheshire West & Chester Council to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
AGMA1 Response by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority / Association of Greater Manchester Authorities to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
WCBC1 Response by Wrexham County Borough Council to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
DB1 Response by Derek Booth to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
AB1 Response by Averil Booth to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
MR1 Response by Melanie Rideout to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
BP1 Response by Barbara Prescott to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
LP1 Response by Lynne Pattinson to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
JH1 Response by John Hobson to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
DP1 Response by Dawid Ptak to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
NW1 Response by Neil White to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
MDB1 Response by Mr D Barber to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
BAR1 Response by David Barker to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
JC1 Response by James Carr to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
HM1 Response by Heather Moore to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 39 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
BACH1 Response by Mr & Mrs Bach to the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
WTC1 Response by Windermere Town Council to the notification by United Utilities of the Examination
MAWD1 Response by Mr & Mrs Mawdsley to the notification by United Utilities of the Examination
BPC1 Response by Blindbothel Parish Council to the notification by United Utilities of the Examination
Examination Submissions
United Utilities
UU1 United Utilities’ response to the Inspector’s Initial Questions
UU2 Statement of Common Ground between United Utilities and Natural England, August 2014
UU3 Statement of Common Ground between United Utilities and the Environment Agency, August 2014
UU4 Statement by United Utilities for the Examination in Public
UU4a Errata to statement by United Utilities for the Examination in Public
UU5 Further Statement of Common Ground between United Utilities and the Environment Agency, 12 September 2014
UU6 Supporting slides for 2 September EiP Meeting (EA/NE/UU)
Environment Agency
EA3 Environment Agency’s response to the Inspector’s Initial Questions
EA4 Statement by the Environment Agency for the Examination in Public
EA5 Flow data for the River Ehen - 2010 to current day
EA6 Ranges of project completion dates, United Utilities
Natural England
NE2 Statement by Natural England for the Examination in Public
NE2a Appendix 1 to written representation by Natural England
NE2b Appendix 2 to written representation by Natural England
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 40 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
NE2c Appendix 3 to written representation by Natural England
Ofwat
OF3 Written representation by Ofwat
OF4 Email from Ofwat dated 1 September 2014
Friends of the Lake District
FLD2 Written representation by Friends of the Lake District
Sellafield Ltd.
SL1 Written representation by Sellafield Ltd.
United Utilities Customer Challenge Group
CCG1 Written representation by United Utilities Customer Challenge Group
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 41 United Utilities: Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan November 2013 Inspector’s Report Ref APP/WRMP/14/3
APPENDIX C - GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS dWRMP draft Water Resources Management Plan EA Environment Agency EDR Environmental Damage Regulations EiP Examination in Public HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment IROPI Imperative Reasons of Public Interest IRZ Integrated Resource Zone NE Natural England PIU Project in Use SAC Special Area of Conservation SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SoCG Statement of Common Ground SoR Statement of Reasons SoS Secretary of State SSSI Special Site of Scientific Interest UU United Utilities WCRZ West Cumbria Resource Zone WRMP Water Resources Management Plan
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 42