1 in the Matter of Water Resources Act 1991, Section

IN THE MATTER OF

WATER RESOURCES ACT 1991, SECTION 52

APPEAL AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY’S VARIATION OF SOUTHERN WATER’S ABSTRACTION LICENCES FROM GROUNDWATER AND THE RIVER ITCHEN

AT TWYFORD AND OTTERBOURNE, HAMPSHIRE

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/RSA/WR/00017

PRE-INQUIRY STATEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

Contents

1. Ambit of these proceedings 2. Details of the abstractions and their setting 3. The licences, and investigations in relation to them 4. Relevant law 5. The Environment Agency’s proposals and representations 6. Summary of the Environment Agency’s responses to points of objection raised by Southern Water 7. List of Annexes 8. Glossary

Section 1: Ambit of these proceedings

1. This is an objection made by Southern Water Services Limited (‘Southern Water’) against proposals by the Environment Agency (‘the Agency’) to vary three licences held by Southern Water for abstractions from groundwater and the River Itchen at Otterbourne (licence numbers 11/42/22.7/94 and 11/42/22.6/93 respectively) and from groundwater at Twyford (licence number 11/42/22.6/92) in Hampshire. The proposals to vary the licences were made by the Agency under section 52 of the Water Resources 1

Act 1991 (‘the Act’) and as Southern Water objected to the proposals under section 53 of the Act, they were referred to the Secretary of State for determination.

2. The existing licences are contained in Annex 1 to this statement (‘the licences’). They authorise Southern Water to abstract water for the purposes of public water supply, at three locations at the rate of 45 Ml/day for the abstraction from the River Itchen at Otterbourne; 72 Ml/day for the groundwater abstraction at Otterbourne, and 36 Ml/day for the groundwater abstraction at Twyford. The aggregate amount per year for all three abstractions is 55,138 Ml. The main aspects of the Agency’s proposals to vary are to impose a Hands-Off Flow (HoF) condition on the abstraction licences, to limit monthly abstraction from June to September and to reduce the aggregate yearly limit to 42,000 Ml per year. The peak daily licence limits will not be modified allowing continued operational flexibility, provided that the monthly total abstraction is not exceeded. Southern Water must manage abstraction to keep the total flow at Allbrook and Highbridge gauging stations above 198 Ml/d, below which it must cease entirely.

3. The purpose of this document is to explain the relevant background to the Agency proposals to vary the three abstraction licences. This reasoning will be expanded upon in the proofs to be served by the Agency at the next stage of these proceedings.

Section 2: Description of the abstraction and its setting

4. The River Itchen is a classic Hampshire chalk river, rising near Alresford in the Hampshire Downs and flowing through Winchester and Eastleigh before discharging into Southampton Water. It has been designated a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (These Regulations have now been revoked as from 30 November 2017 and replaced by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) implementing the EU Habitats Directive. The River Itchen SAC consists of large parts of the multi-channelled main river system and includes the majority of its principal tributaries, the Candover, Alre and Cheriton (or Tichborne) streams as well as areas in the valley floor (see Map A and Map B below).

5. The river's natural characteristics are cool temperatures and stable flow regimes with good quality, well oxygenated and alkaline water of high clarity. These chalk streams are rare in the UK and rarer internationally, their physical characteristics supporting prolific and diverse wildlife that merit conservation through a number of designations. As well as sustaining these nature conservation interests, the water resources of the valley are used for public water supply, dilution of treated sewage effluent, fish farming, watercress growing, agriculture, fisheries and recreation. Two augmentation schemes, the Candover Scheme and Alre Scheme, were developed in the 1970s and 1980s to support flows and water quality in the River Itchen. The water resources of the Itchen valley have been of fundamental importance to the development of urban south Hampshire.

6. The Otterbourne water treatment works was developed by Southampton City Corporation in the 19th century to supply a rapidly growing population along the estuaries of the Rivers Test and Itchen. It was located at the southern boundary of the chalk (see Map A below) to exploit river flows as well as the abundant groundwater on which the river depends. Twyford pumping station was constructed for the same purpose on the other side of the valley (see Map B below) and consists of a series of wells and boreholes intercepting chalk groundwater on its way to the river.

BASINGSTOKE

ANDOVER

Candover Scheme

t s e T

r e v i R Alre Scheme n WINCHESTER e h

c t I

v i

R (! Otterbourne n

e Testwood v (! Gaters Mill i (! R SOUTHAMPTON

PORTSMOUTH

Water Resources in Hampshire

Legend Special Area of Conservation Augmentation Pipeline Special Protection Area !( Large Public Water Supply 0 1 2 4 6 8 abstractions Kilometers Site of Special Scientific Interest Chalk © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Urban Areas Environment Agency, 100026380, (2014). Clays and Sands

MAP A – Location of River Itchen showing key water resource features, geology and major conservation designations

7. Southern Water’s abstractions at Otterbourne and Twyford reduce flows in an approximately 13 kilometre stretch of the river system from Twyford to the tidal limit of the river at Woodmill. There are large volumes of treated effluent discharged to the ground at Winchester (Morestead WWTW) and directly to the River Itchen at Eastleigh (Chickenhall WWTW) which act to increase flows but the reduction in flows caused by abstraction is greater than the increase caused by these discharges. This is because a significant proportion of the abstracted water is discharged to the sea via coastal sewage treatment works.

8. The combination of abstractions and discharges has been modelled to identify the magnitude and extent of the impact on flows. The most impacted reach is a stretch of the river system approximately 7 kilometres long between Otterbourne and Chickenhall WWTW which is represented by the flows measured at Allbrook and Highbridge Gauging Stations. The Test and Itchen catchment Resource Assessment and Management (RAM) ledger suggests that typical naturalised summer flows (Q95) can be depleted in this reach by 20 – 25% but impacts when the licences are fully used are likely to be more than 30% and during drought periods could be around 40%.

River Itchen SAC c t

i R

Twyford groundwater abstraction

River Itchen SAC

Otterbourne surface water abstraction

Otterbourne groundwater abstraction

Highbridge Gauging Allbrook Gauging )" Station Station )"

)" Southern Water Lower Itchen Public Water 0 0.5 1 Supply Licences Kilometers

MAP B – Detailed location map for Southern Water’s Lower Itchen sources

Conservation and other designations

9. The River Itchen was designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in 2005. The extent of the SAC is marked on Map B above. An overview of the SAC interest

features for the site is given below: *#*#

*# *#

*# *# 1.1 Riverine Habitats - Annex 1 habitat type Watercourse of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation (subtype 1: river on chalk substrate), including typical species, as characterised by the macrophyte, macroinvertebrate and fish communities

1.2 Southern Damselfly 1.3 Bullhead 1.4 Atlantic Salmon 1.5 Otter 1.6 Brook Lamprey 1.7 Native Crayfish

A copy of the SAC notification is in Annex 2.

10. The River Itchen flows into the Solent estuary. This estuary forms part of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area and Ramsar, and part of the Solent Maritime SAC.

11. The River Itchen is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (of which the SAC is part) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for:

 Assemblages of breeding birds - Lowland open waters and their margins  Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar  Brook Lamprey, Lampetra planeri  Bullhead, Cottus gobio  Flowing Waters - Type III: Base-Rich, Low-Energy Lowland Rivers And Streams, Generally With A Stable Flow Regime  Invertebrate Assemblage  M22 - Juncus subnodulosus - Cirsium palustre fen meadow  MG5 - Cynosurus cristatus - Centaurea nigra grassland  MG8 - Cynosurus cristatus - Caltha palustris grassland  Nationally rare and scarce dragonfly species - Coenagrion mercuriale, Southern Damselfly

 Otter, Lutra lutra  S25 - Phragmites australis - Eupatorium cannabinum tall-herb fen  S26 - Phragmites australis - Urtica dioica tall-herb fen  S4 - Phragmites australis swamp and reed-beds  S5 - Glyceria maxima swamp  S7 - Carex acutiformis swamp  W1 - Salix cinerea - Galium palustre woodland  W5 - Alnus glutinosa - Carex paniculata woodland  W6 - Alnus glutinosa - Urtica dioica woodland  Water Vole, Arvicola terrestris (now Arvicola amphibious)  White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes

Those features are grouped into 5 broad habitat types:

 Broadleaved, Mixed and Yew Woodland - Lowland  Fen, Marsh and Swamp - Lowland  Neutral Grassland - Lowland  Rivers and Streams  Standing Open Water and Canals

12. For the purposes of the Water Framework Directive the groundwater abstractions are located in the groundwater body GB40701G505000. The status of this water body is ‘Poor’. The surface water abstraction is within the water body [GB107042022580]. The overall ecological status of the surface water body, as specified in the 2015 South East River Basin Management Plan (RBMP), is ‘Good’.

Section 3: The licences, and investigations in relation to them

13. The licences (Annex 1) were granted on 23 December 1965 for Otterbourne groundwater and surface water licences and 26 November 1965 for the Twyford groundwater licence. As stated in section 1 above they authorise abstraction at the rate of 45 Ml/day for the abstraction from the River Itchen at Otterbourne; 72Ml/day for the abstraction from groundwater at Otterbourne, and 36Ml/day for the abstraction

from groundwater at Twyford. The annual figures are 16,639, 21,230 and 13,320

Ml/year respectively.

14. Since 1989, abstraction from these sources has generally fallen and in the last ten years, Southern Water have used on average, 31,000 Ml/year from the three sources. They have used around 59% of the licensed amount from the River Itchen at Otterbourne, 69% of the Otterbourne groundwater licence and 43% of the licence at Twyford.

15. The Agency started its Habitats Regulations Review of Consents (RoC) in 2001 and followed a four-step process:-

 Stage 1 involved the identification of all relevant permissions for the River Itchen SAC;  In Stage 2, all relevant permissions identified in Stage 1 were subject to further high- level assessment to identify ‘likely significant effect’. Those that failed the test passed into Stage 3. Stages 1 and 2 were completed in 2001-3.  In Stage 3 the Agency conducted an Appropriate Assessment to ascertain that the Agency regulated permissions were not having an adverse effect upon the integrity of the site. Each Agency permission was assessed both alone and in-combination with one another and with other plans and projects and prevailing conditions. Southern Water received funding in AMP 3 (2000-2005) to investigate the impact of their abstractions on the River Itchen SAC. They did this through a project called the River Itchen Sustainability Study (RISS) and that study informed the outcomes of the Stage 3 Appropriate Assessment. The Agency concluded in 2005 that it could not show the Southern Water abstraction licences would not adversely affect the integrity of the River Itchen SAC due to risks to the water course of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation sub type 1 (and associated typical species), as characterised by the macroinvertebrate community; and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) interest features. For clarity, it should be noted that these abstraction licences are not fully used and when considering routine ecological monitoring data over the last 20 years, there has been no apparent evidence of any adverse effect on integrity resulting from current actual use of these abstraction

licences within the context of the climatic conditions at the time. The potential environmental impacts identified in the Review of Consents work are related to the risk of adverse effect as a result of full use of the abstraction licences under low flow conditions.  In Stage 4, (completed in 2007), the Agency conducted further technical work, and using local data and evidence, derived a target flow regime for the SAC. The Agency produced a Site Action Plan setting out the reasoning for action it proposed to take on all those permissions that failed the Appropriate Assessment. It was assessed that if Southern Water abstracted to the full extent of their current licences, flows would fall below that target flow regime and the licences could adversely and irreversibly impact the invertebrate community and salmon migration in this reach.

RISS was led by Southern Water who initiated a steering group which included the Environment Agency, Natural England, local authorities and other key stakeholders and was project managed by Halcrow consultants. RISS sought to collate existing local data and to generate new data about the abiotic and biotic attributes of the Itchen catchment over an ecological and hydrological assessment period – 30 years from 1970 to 2000, in order to inform the Agency’s RoC Stage 3 process.

16. The Stage 4 Site Action Plan options identification and appraisal process considered the ways in which licences could be modified to reduce the risks to acceptable levels by meeting the environmental outcomes required by the Habitats Directive and Regulations.

Option 1 – Revoke the licences Option 1 would achieve the environmental outcomes. However, the environmental outcomes could also be achieved through modifications to the licences, so it was not considered fair or reasonable to revoke them.

Option 2 – Modify Licences to meet Environment Agency target flow regime Using the water resource model (as set out in SAP Appendix C), different seasonal abstraction patterns were tested to assess compliance with the flow regime. This showed that in order to meet the invertebrate flow regime, reductions in monthly abstraction were required for all Lower Itchen licences for August and September and 10

abstraction should not cause flows to fall below a certain threshold. It also proved necessary to introduce an additional constraint on monthly abstraction in order to protect flows in June and July for salmon migration. It was proposed that the peak daily licence limit should not be modified; this maintains operational flexibility in the licences, provided that the monthly total abstraction is not exceeded.

This option would ensure that the Environmental Outcomes will be fully met but does have a significant impact on Southern Water. Southern Water has stated that it could comply with the proposed monthly limits on abstraction (except in September) under its current pattern of abstraction. However, in a drought event, imposition of the hands off flow will significantly reduce abstraction. Sustainability reductions of 72 Ml/d at Peak Deployable Output and 94 Ml/d at Maximum Deployable Output have been estimated by Southern Water in its latest Water Resources Management Plan (2014)1 (Annex 5).

Option 3 – Modify Licences to meet Natural England target flow regime Option 3 was a proposal to meet the conservation objective specified by Natural England at that time but would have placed significant restrictions on abstraction. At the time the Site Action Plan was written in 2007, Natural England’s Conservation Objectives for the site stated that abstraction should be less than 10-15% of the naturalised flow for flows lower than Qn95, less than 15% of naturalised flow for flows between Qn95 and Qn50 and less than 20% of naturalised flows for flows larger than Qn50. This would have required a major reduction in all public water supply abstraction licences in the Lower Itchen not just during low flow periods but for the majority of the year and would also have reduced current rates of abstraction.

Option 4 – Do Nothing – Affirm the Licences Option 4 was to affirm the licences. Further work carried out by the Agency suggested that if the licences were affirmed then in extreme low flow conditions the invertebrate community and salmon migration would be adversely and irreversibly affected.

1 Table 5.3, Page 71 of Water Resources Management Plan, Technical Report (October 2014) 11

17. Option 2 was selected as the preferred option in the Agency’s Stage 4 Site Action Plan. In its Site Action Plan (2007) the Agency stated that nine abstraction licences should be modified (not affirmed or revoked), in order to remove the risk to site integrity, and prescribed specific licence changes necessary to allow the outcome to be reached. The licence changes specified in the Site Action Plan were based on protecting that target flow regime and secure certainty that the licences could be shown to not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. Modifications to four public water supply licences were identified including the three Southern Water licences referenced above and one Portsmouth Water licence which was modified in 2011. The full detail of this work was reported in the Agency’s Appropriate Assessment and Site Action Plan (see Annexes 3 and 4 respectively).

18. The Agency’s changes to Southern Water's three Itchen licences were included in the National Environment Programme in 2008 to enable Southern Water to assess the impact of these changes and put in place through its Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) any measures necessary to maintain security of supply. Full details of Southern Water's assessment of the impact of these proposed licence changes on its supply demand balance is published in its Water Resource Management Plan (October 2014) [Annex 5]. In summary Southern Water determined that the proposed imposition of the immediately effective licence changes would lead to a supply- demand deficit of 94 Ml/d (dry year annual average) and 72 Ml/d (critical period scenario).

19. The WRMP proposed three new infrastructure dependent schemes in South Hampshire, along with further leakage reduction and water efficiency promotion, as its preferred solution to the abstraction licence changes: a new Bulk Supply from Portsmouth Water; acquiring the (Agency owned) Candover groundwater scheme; and a new pipeline between Testwood and Otterbourne to transfer up to 45Ml/d.

20. Assuming that the schemes above were successful, Southern Water proposed that the licence changes required in the River Itchen Site Action Plan should be implemented in a phased way as described below:

2015 - Accept the aggregate monthly volumes for June, July and August and reduce the aggregate annual licence volume. 2017 - Apply the flow condition to the surface water licence. 2018 - Apply the flow condition to the groundwater licences and a monthly volume limit in September to all three licences.

21. In line with its WRMP, in October 2015 following discussion and agreement with the Agency, Southern Water volunteered to modify its licences to accept monthly changes in June and July and to reduce the annual aggregate licence volume from 51,138 Ml to 42,000 Ml with immediate effect. At the same time it volunteered to implement the remaining licence changes by December 2018, assuming that the other WRMP measures would be delivered by that time. No comments were made at this time by Southern Water objecting to the need for or technical justification of the proposed licence changes and no such objections have ever been made since contesting the technical justification for the proposed licence changes.

22. On 24 December 2015, the Agency wrote to Southern Water [Annex 6] to state that the voluntary changes to the abstraction licences would not be issued with the December 2018 timescale, as in order to achieve compliance with Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive as transposed by the then Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 - both explained in Section 4 below - there must be a valid case for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest (IROPI) in place before the modified licence containing conditions with delayed implementation dates, rather than being implemented immediately in order to meet the December 2015 deadline discussed below, could be issued. At that time, Southern Water was invited to provide evidence to support an IROPI case including consideration of alternative solutions.

23. Between January 2016 and August 2016, working with Natural England, the Agency prepared a draft IROPI case to submit to Defra using information supplied by Southern Water. After looking at the draft IROPI case, Defra wrote to Southern Water on 11 August 2016 [Annex 7] to ask Southern Water to supply additional information to support the draft IROPI case by 2 September as the case put forward for IROPI was not convincing as there were alternative solutions to meeting any theoretical deficit in

water supply. The Defra letter contained an analysis of the reasons why Southern Water’s IROPI case was not made out including that there were feasible alternative solutions namely application(s) for droughts permits or drought orders in the event of drought conditions.

24. The drought permit/order regime as set out in sections 73-81 of the Act specifically caters for the situation envisaged by Southern Water whereby it is necessary to abstract beyond the restrictions imposed by abstraction licences in order to meet public water supply obligations. The imposition of ‘special’ conditions in abstraction licences would subvert the purpose of this drought regime which has its own procedural requirements and safeguards and is a distinct regulatory process.

25. Some further information was supplied by Southern Water but on 27 September 2016, the Agency responded in a letter [Annex 8] that stated: “Following review of your response, we do not consider that there is any information that is substantially different from what you have previously provided. As we have previously stated, any delay to making the 3 Itchen abstraction licences changes would only be acceptable with an Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) case under the Habitats Directive and Regulations. An IROPI case can only be made if there are no alternative solutions to the proposed activity. We believe that there are alternatives to delaying the licence changes until December 2018. You have previously stated to both Environment Agency Area staff and in the IROPI document submission that network re-zoning and calls for customer restraint will comfortably overcome your need to exceed the proposed monthly aggregate volumes. Therefore you would not breach the new licence conditions proposed. We believe that you could use drought orders to secure water supplies to address the impact of an extreme drought. As there are alternative solutions available there are no IROPI. Therefore the licence changes must be made with immediate effect”. The application of IROPI to the variation of the abstraction licences and Southern Water’s objection to the Agency’s proposals is thus one of the key issues in this appeal.

26. The letter continued to say that in response to the October 2015 section 51 application to vary the licences, the Agency would issue varied licences where all conditions take immediate effect. However, on the 17 October 2016 Southern Water withdrew its 14

section 51 application made in October 2015. The Agency acknowledged this withdrawal on 19 October 2016. Consequently, no licence changes were made.

27. In order to deliver the licence changes needed to comply with the protected area requirements of Article 4(1)(c) of the Water Framework Directive, to ensure that the protected area objectives for River Itchen SAC would be met and to ensure that the requirements of the Habitats Directive to ensure no adverse effect to River Itchen SAC from Southern Water’s abstractions, the Agency decided to formulate proposals to vary the licences under section 52 of the Act. In its Provisional Case Southern Water accepts that many of these changes are necessary in order to meet these legal obligations.

Section 4. Relevant Law

28. This section sets out the law which is most relevant to the proposals to vary Southern Water’s licences, both substantive and procedural.

29. The abstraction and impoundment licensing regime is contained in Part II of the Act, supplemented by the Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006 (‘the 2006 Regulations’), regulation 31 of which sets out the procedural requirements in relation to proposals by the Agency to vary licences.

30. Section 52(1) of the Act entitles the Agency to formulate proposals to vary or revoke an abstraction licence. Section 52(4) of the Act requires the Agency to serve notice of any proposals on the licence holder and to advertise the proposals. Section 52(6) of the Act requires the notice to contain certain prescribed matters and section 52(7) gives the licence holder 28 days to object from date of service of notice and likewise any persons wishing to make representations on proposals.

31. Section 53(4) of the Act requires the Agency to refer the proposals to the Secretary of State where the licence holder objects to the variation or revocation proposals. Section 54 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to consider the proposals, the licence holder’s objection and any representations made by third parties and to determine whether any licence should be varied or revoked. Before doing so the Secretary of 15

State can cause a local inquiry to be held or afford to the holder of the licence and the Agency an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State’s decision is to vary or revoke a licence, he shall direct the Agency to vary or revoke the licence accordingly.

32. The Agency has a duty to “to take all such action as it may from time to time consider, in accordance with any directions given under section 40 below, to be necessary or expedient for the purpose--(a) of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in England; and (b) of securing the proper use of water resources in England (including the efficient use of those resources)” [section 6(2) Environment Act 1995].

33. The most relevant other legislation that applies to the proposals to vary the licences are the provisions of the Habitats Directive [94/43/EEC] transposed into national law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the Habitats Regulations’). These Regulations though only came into force on 30 November 2017 so for all material purposes it is the predecessor regulations transposing the Habitats Directive that applied to decisions by the Agency relating to these appeals. In particular the Regulations 63-68 Habitats Regulations (as did the equivalent provisions in the predecessor Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) transpose Articles 6(3) and 6(4) Habitats Directive relating to assessment of effects of plans or projects on designated European sites (SACs and SPAs collectively known as Natura 2000 sites).

34. Article 6(3) to 6(4) Habitats Directive effectively establishes a three-stage process:

(i) initial consideration of whether a plan or project is “likely” to have a significant effect on the SAC;

(ii) if required, an “appropriate assessment” which considers whether the plan or project can be concluded not to have an adverse effect on the “integrity of the site”; and

(iii) where the appropriate assessment is negative, consideration of whether there is any overriding public interest which means that authorisation for the plan or project should in any event be granted.

35. The Agency was under a duty to review all existing licences, permissions and consents, known as the Review of Consents (RoC) as referred to above, to ensure that they were not having an adverse effect on SACs and SPAs (Regulation 65 of the Habitats Regulations, formerly Regulation 63 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Regulation 50 Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994) and to affirm, modify or revoke them accordingly. This review, which included the three Southern Water abstraction licences, looked at effects of permissions, plans and projects on the designated interest features of the River Itchen SAC as mentioned in paragraph 9 above and on any other Natura 2000 sites.

36. As stated above, the conclusion of the RoC was that the three licences were having a likely significant effect and following appropriate assessment could not be ascertained not to be having an adverse effect on the integrity of River Itchen SAC. The licences therefore were required to be varied in order to ensure no adverse effect on the SAC and to comply with the requirements of the Habitats Directive and Regulations.

37. Article 6(4) Habitats Directive (Regulations 64 and 66 Habitats Regulations) does allow for plans or projects to proceed where they must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) provided there are no alternative solutions to the plan or project, and that compensatory measures are secured. There is Government and European Commission guidance on meaning and application of Article 6(4) [Annexes 9 and 10 respectively]. In particular in section 1.3.2 of the European Commission Guidance on page 8 it is stressed that short term economic interest would not meet the threshold for a public interest being overriding.

38. The consideration of IROPI applies to the particular plan or project for which no adverse effects on integrity of European sites can be concluded. In this case it was the proposed variations to the 3 abstraction licences that were considered for IROPI but rejected on the basis that there were alternative solutions, namely the provision of drought orders or permits. In the event, which is not part of this case and inquiry, that

drought orders were applied for they, as new plans or projects, would be required to go through the Article 6(3) and 6(4) Habitats Directive process including if appropriate consideration of IROPI.

39. In addition the Water Framework Directive [2000/60/EC] (‘the WFD’) transposed into national law by the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (formerly the 2003 Regulations) (‘the WFD Regulations’) establishes a framework to protect (amongst others) surface waters and groundwater by preventing them from deteriorating and for protected areas by ensuring compliance with standards and objectives is achieved by December 2015.

40. Article 4 is the core provision and sets environmental objectives for water bodies. By Article 4(1)(a)(i) and (ii) WFD, in making operational the programmes of measures2 specified in its RBMPs Member States must ‘implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration in the status of all bodies of surface water…’; and protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water with the aim of achieving ‘good surface water status’ by December 2015. There are similar objectives in relation to groundwater bodies in Article 4(1)(b)(i) and (ii) WFD.

41. There is an additional objective in relation to protected areas in Article 4(1)(c) WFD whereby compliance with any standards or objectives, set down in the legislation under which those protected areas are established, must be met by timescale in that legislation or, if none set down, by December 2015. Protected areas are defined in Article 6 and Annex IV WFD and include sites designated under Habitats and Wild Birds Directives (SACs and SPAs collectively known as Natura 2000 sites). As there is no time limit for achieving the standards and objectives in the Habitats Directive, the default date for compliance was December 2015. The objectives and standards of the Habitats Directive are “to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, the natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest” [Article 2(2) Habitats Directive].

2 Defined by Article 11 WFD to include controls over the abstraction of surface water and groundwater 18

42. Regulations 3(1) and (2) of the WFD Regulations require the Agency, when exercising its functions under the Act, which include ‘determining an authorisation’3, ‘to secure compliance with the requirements of the WFD’, ‘prevent deterioration of the surface water status…of a body of water’ and ‘otherwise support the achievement of the environmental objectives for a body of water’. This is a continuing obligation. The Secretary of State has a similar to duty to exercise its functions so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the WFD. Regulation 33 further requires the Agency, the Secretary of State and other public bodies (including water companies) when exercising their functions, to have regard to the provisions of the RBMP approved by the Secretary of State.

43. One of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive is to achieve compliance4 with the objectives for protected areas, including sites designated under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives, Natura 2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) by December 2015. The protected area objective for Natura 2000 sites is to maintain or restore a site at favourable conservation status. The Agency must ensure that licensed water abstraction (along with other Agency permissions) does not adversely affect the integrity of sites of European importance (SACs and SPAs) and it must take action to maintain and restore favourable conservation status and prevent any deterioration.

Section 5: The Agency’s proposals and representations

44. The Agency’s proposals to vary the licences were included in the notice served on Southern Water on 7 November 2016 (Annex 11) together with the covering letter. Table 3 below gives details of the proposed licence changes. In summary, the following would be required:

(i) Imposition of aggregate total monthly abstraction limits during June to September inclusive as follows: 4,110 Ml for June, 3,940 Ml for July, 3,445 Ml for August and 2,280 Ml for September. The peak daily licence limits will not

3 Defined by regulation 3(3) to include whether to vary an abstraction licence 4 In the context of implementation of a licence change for a Habitats Directive protected area, ‘serving notice’ under section 52 of the Act achieves WFD compliance. 19

be modified; this means that there is operational flexibility in the licences, provided that the monthly total abstraction is not exceeded.

(ii) A Hands-Off Flow (HoF) condition to be added to the licences. Southern Water must manage abstraction to keep the total combined flow at Allbrook and Highbridge gauging stations above 198 Ml/d to prevent them having to cease abstraction.

(iii) A time limit of 31 March 2025 (Test & Itchen catchment common end date) to be added to the licences.

45. In addition, the Agency also proposed to reduce the annual aggregate total of the three licences from 55,138 Ml to 42,000 Ml. Although not specifically mentioned in the Site

Action Plan, this measure is included to further protect the integrity of the SAC, and more closely reflects what water Southern Water reasonably needs and ensures that the Agency secures proper use of water resources. Emerging policies relating to sustainable catchments are also seeking to remove unused headroom from licences to restrict growth in abstraction. Southern Water offered this reduction in its original voluntary application

to change its licences and has assessed that it will not affect its Deployable Output.

46. The proposed changes form part of the actions from the South East River Basin Management Plan for Protected Areas and should have been in place by 22 December 2015 to meet Water Framework Directive compliance deadlines. The delay in providing the full set of licence conditions required to protect the River Itchen SAC means that there is a risk that abstraction could have an adverse effect on the SAC. This continued risk is deemed not acceptable and as there is no IROPI case the Agency has proposed that the licences with all the changes described above and shown in Table 3 below are issued with immediate effective dates in order to protect the River Itchen SAC. Copies of the each of the proposed licences are included in full in Annex 12

Table 3 - Proposed changes to Southern Water’s lower Itchen sources

Licence Existing Proposed Licence Hourl Daily Annual Hourly Daily June July Aug Sept Annual Hands Off Number y Flow5 m3/hr Ml/day Ml/yr Ml/ m3/hr Ml/day Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml/yr Ml/day day Twyfor 22.6/92 - 36.37 13,320 36. No change Aggrega Aggrega Aggrega Aggre Aggregate 198 d 49 te into te into te into gate into group ground group group group into total water total total total group (11/42/2 total 2.6/92)

Otterbo 22.7/94 - 71.60 21,230 58. No change urne 16 ground water (Includi ng Twyfor d Moors) (11/42/2 2.7/94) Otterbo 22.6/93 - 45.46 16,639 45. No change urne 59 surface water (11/42/2 2.6/93)

SWS 153.43 51,188 140 4,110 3,940 3,445 2,280 42,000 Lower .24 Itchen aggrega te total

47. The Agency’s proposals were advertised in the Hampshire Chronicle on 17 November 2016 and 10 representations were received from those with a local interest in the river and also national organisations such as WWF UK, Fish Legal, and Salmon and Trout Conservation UK. Nine of those responses supported the Agency’s proposals and one offered a comment. Many of the responses came from organisations and individuals

5 Flow is the sum of flows recorded at Allbrook and Highbridge Gauging Stations 21 who had also made responses in relation to the other proposed licence changes for the Environment Agency’s Candover Scheme and Southern Water’s voluntary application to modify their Testwood licence. The representations are in Annex 13 and can be summarised into several clear themes as described below.

Support for proposed licence changes Most representations supported the proposed licence changes – in particular the proposed new monthly limits and the reduction in annual licensed abstraction. Several of the responses noted that this proposed licence change amounts to a useful first step in moving towards a more sustainable abstraction licence.

Several also commented that the licence changes should be made as soon as possible - noting the legal obligation under Water Framework Directive to ensure that measures for Protected Areas are implemented before the end of December 2015. One respondent stated that by implementing the licence changes immediately they were pleased to see the burden of risk transfer from the environment to the Water Company. A few respondents suggested that Southern Water should already have made partial changes to their licences to move towards more sustainable abstraction licences.

Concerns about Southern Water’s progress in developing new sustainable source of water Another common theme was concern about the apparent slow progress made by Southern Water in modifying the licences and in developing sustainable alternative supplies. One respondent was keen for the company to move away from engineering solutions and embrace an ecosystems services approach with greater innovation and development of longer term sustainable solutions. Similar sentiments were echoed by others seeking a move away from abstraction from chalk streams and the chalk aquifer and supporting wider catchment solutions. Several responses noted that they were pleased to see Southern Water beginning to engage with stakeholders in relation to the emerging Water Resources Management Plan.

Links between the licence changes and potential additional abstraction from the River Test

Two of the respondents expressed concern that imposition of the Itchen licence changes would result in increased abstraction from the River Test.

This consultation period was in advance of the Environment Agency serving notice on Southern Water to propose licence changes to protect the River Test and associated designated sites.

Alternative environmental objectives WWF UK supplied a copy of a report that they had commissioned to demonstrate their belief that the Hands-Off Flow condition on the River Itchen at Allbrook & Highbridge should be raised from 198 Ml/d to 224 Ml/d. Others also supported this proposal.

Natural England noted that the rCSMG (Joint Nature Conservation Committee revised Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for rivers) flow targets may apply on the River Itchen in the future. The Environment Agency is working with Natural England to determine a revised target flow regime for the River Itchen and will have regard to both of these proposals in reaching a decision by 2021. These may potentially trigger further licence changes.

Concerns about SSSI designated habitats and species Natural England also raised a concern that these three abstraction licences could be having an impact on SSSI floodplain wetlands and breeding birds.

Potential impacts on these habitats and species will be considered as a part of a wider investigation that Southern Water will be required to carry out between 2020 and 2025. These may potentially trigger further licence changes.

Concern about the derogation of a downstream abstraction Portsmouth Water has an abstraction licence downstream of Southern Water’s abstractions. That licence was varied to meet the Review of Consents requirements in 2011. Portsmouth Water commented that it would be concerned if the development of any alternative sources led to derogation of its supplies.

48. Southern Water formally objected to the Agency’s proposals to vary on 15 December 2016 [Annex 14]. As a result the objection was referred to the Secretary of State on 20 December 2016. The Secretary of State subsequently referred the matter to the Planning Inspectorate to hear.

Section 6. Summary of the Agency’s responses to points of objection raised by Southern Water

49. The Agency understands that Southern Water’s principal concern relates to the timing of the licence changes rather than any objection to the licence changes themselves or to the technical and ecological justification of those changes. The overall concern that Southern Water expressed was an objection to licence changes being made before a solution is in place to secure their supply demand balance. To expand upon this point, four key issues were raised in its objection:

(i) The immediate enforced implementation of the changes, being before replacement public water supplies are in place. (ii) The assumption by the Agency (and Defra) that a Drought Order will be granted during drought to remove the constraints on abstraction caused by the licence changes. (iii) The lack of clarity on how such a Drought Order will be granted, relative to establishing that a case of imperative reason of over-riding public interest ("IROPI") exists and, an associated Habitats Regulations ‘compensation’ package’ is agreed and implemented. (iv) In order to ensure Southern Water’s statutory duties are met during drought conditions it is likely that Drought Order applications will be made more frequently than they will need to be implemented.

50. The Agency’s responses to the four main points are discussed below. Southern Water’s objection also requested clarification from Defra and the Secretary of State in relation to certain questions. The Agency is unable to directly respond to those questions which the Agency presumes are directed towards the Inspector to address.

Immediate enforced implementation of licence changes 24

51. When the South East River Basin Management Plan was published in January 2016, which was slightly later than the 22 December 2015 deadline, there was a clear statutory requirement that all measures needed for Protected Areas would be in place by 22 December 2015. The Habitats Directive or Regulations do not set a deadline for implementation of their objectives but the Water Framework Directive does for protected area objectives (which includes Habitats Directive objectives) where there is no such deadline in the Directive under which a site is designated and the deadline was 22 December 2015.

52. Although the local Agency team had previously discussed with Southern Water proposals to delay implementation of the licence changes, it became clear that issuing licences with delayed implementation dates was not acceptable. Southern Water noted that previously the Agency and Defra had outlined concerns about imposition of the licence changes resulting in a deficit in the supply demand balance for the 2014 WRMP. Although a WRMP should not be in deficit, the Agency’s obligations to protect the environment require it to take action in line with its statutory obligations (see section 4 – Relevant law above). The reasons for this were set out in the Agency’s letter on 24 December 2016 (Annex 6).

53. Southern Water contends that it has not been allowed reasonable opportunity to develop alternative options to replace the output lost by changes to the Itchen licences. The objection also states that the immediate imposition of licence changes may not drive the optimum solution.

54. The licence changes needed to secure protection for the River Itchen were known in 2007; and in its 2009 WRMP, both the Candover and Testwood schemes were identified as potential options to resolve the sustainability issues on the River Itchen. Southern Water did not fully investigate the suitability and risk of these schemes at that time.

55. In Southern Water’s 2014 WRMP, Testwood and Candover were identified as preferred options to resolve the forecast deficit in the South Hampshire zone. These options were both identified as having significant environmental risks that may prevent 25

or delay implementation but were both still included in the preferred solution. Southern Water committed to investigating alternative solutions in case these two options could not be implemented. At this stage there was an opportunity for Southern Water to consider a wider variety of options which could have allowed more time to develop a more robust and sustainable long term solution with less reliance on options which had already been identified as posing risks to the environment. The Agency was expecting Southern Water to scope a wider variety of options in parallel to developing the preferred options.

56. Since 2007, Southern Water has shown little progress investigating alternative programmes or schemes to maintain supplies whilst returning sustainability to the River Itchen SAC. The Agency has repeatedly identified this in its feedback to the Southern Water and in its annual review report to Defra of Southern Water’s WRMP. The draft WRMP for the 2019 statutory round of planning was submitted to the Secretary of State on 1 December 2017 but has yet to be published for consultation.

The assumption by the Agency (and Defra) that a Drought Order will be granted during drought to remove the constraints on abstraction caused by the licence changes.

57. Southern Water has proposed that a special condition to its abstraction licence would be preferable to a drought order. The drought planning process and associated legislative provisions operate to protect security of supply and minimise the impacts of abstraction on the environment during a drought. The Agency will not specify conditions on licences to allow a licence to operate as a quasi-drought order/permit as that undermines the purpose and role of the drought legislative regime and drought planning process. This includes conditions related to any drought triggers or measures such as temporary use bans.

58. Working with Defra, the Agency explored if an IROPI case could be made to allow abstraction to continue during droughts because Southern Water believed there to be an overriding public interest. Defra determined that there was an alternative to permitting abstraction to continue under the terms of an abstraction licence. In its letter to Southern Water dated 11 August 2016 (Annex 7) Defra stated that the alternative solution was to apply for a Drought Order. 26

59. Southern Water expressed concern that security of supply is at risk if Southern Water has to rely on a Drought Order to maintain the supply demand balance, as there is no guarantee that a Drought Order will be granted. Drought orders are granted by the Secretary of State and can be used to vary abstraction licence conditions and/or restrict non-essential use of water during a drought as set out in sections 74 and 75 of the Act.

60. There is an existing and established legal process for the application for, and granting of, drought orders. One key aspect of a drought order application is that in order for an application to be entertained the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there by an “exceptional shortage of rain” there is a “serious deficiency of supplies of water in any area” [section 73(1) of the Act]. The definition of ‘exceptional shortage of rain’ is decided on a case by case basis, at the time of drought. It is distinct from lower river flows or water available for supplies. This is set out in the existing Agency position statement, “Exceptional shortage of rain – Principles for the assessment of drought orders and permits” [Annex 15] in the Background section:

The legal criteria that must be met in granting a drought order or permit include 'If the Secretary of State / Agency is satisfied that, by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain, a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any area exists or is threatened…..' It is not appropriate to set a prescriptive approach to assessing the exceptional shortage of rain. Each drought and each situation is unique. Previous drought order and permit hearings and inquiries have confirmed that there should be no set definition of exceptional shortage of rain.

61. The Agency would expect a water company to demonstrate how it has considered all possible options the company could take to reduce demand and/or maximise supplies in the short term before strategic options can be developed. As part of the preparation for an ordinary drought order application, the water company must assess the impact of the proposed amendment to the abstraction regime upon the environment. For a drought order to be granted by the Secretary of State, a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity of European sites must be reached. If this conclusion cannot be reached,

and there are no alternative solutions, then IROPI can be considered in relation to the grant of the drought order.

62. Therefore it would not be appropriate to predetermine the outcome of any such assessment through use of ‘special’ conditions. All drought order applications are dealt with and assessed by the Secretary of State at the time of drought, using data and information from the active drought event. However, the chance of success of a drought order application can be significantly enhanced by preparing as much of the evidence in advance of the drought event – to be ‘application-ready’ - and by working with relevant stakeholders to develop the basis of an IROPI case and any necessary compensatory measures package.

63. Southern Water’s Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment of its Drought Plan is a process by which the company can anticipate and plan for such risks.

The lack of clarity on how such a drought order will be granted, relative to a case for IROPI and compensation package

64. In its objection Southern Water sought clarification from the Secretary of State about how the Drought Order application and IROPI case submission would be processed and considered. This specific question was addressed to the Secretary of State so will not be dealt with here.

65. IROPI can be considered when it not possible to conclude that there is no adverse effect on the integrity of a designated site during drought and where no alternative solutions are available. If this is the case, compensation for the effects must be provided. Within its objection, Southern Water also wanted to check if compensation is only needed for the period just before the Hands-Off Flow is reached on the Itchen until the point at which any damage has ceased. The Agency determined that should abstraction cause flows to fall below the HoF level, then irrecoverable damage would be caused to the chalk stream habitat and salmon population which would require compensation.

Drought Order applications are likely to be made more frequently than they will need to be implemented.

66. Southern Water’s objection focussed on providing details about how frequently applications for drought orders may be needed which will be far more frequently than drought conditions actually occur. Southern Water estimates that it may need to apply for a drought order once every 3 – 5 years.

67. Once implemented, ‘ordinary’ drought orders are in force for 6 months from the date the order comes into force. A water company can then reapply for an extension of a further 6 months so that the ordinary drought order extends up to 1 year from the date it originally came into force. The frequency in which a water company can apply for a drought order does not affect how successful a drought order application will be. Southern Water states in its objection that there would be a higher frequency of needing to apply for a drought order to a magnitude of once every 3-5 years, but this in principle does not affect the likelihood of granting any drought orders and the criteria for a drought order are not related to number of orders that have been granted historically.

68. The timeline for the company applying for a drought order should be detailed in the company’s drought plan. As far as possible, drought orders within this drought plan should be ‘application ready’ – meaning that as much information as possible should have already been gathered, and where it cannot be obtained in advance of a drought, there should be a plan for obtaining the information required to allow timely determination of the drought order. The Agency has produced extra information for water companies on being ‘application ready’ in its “Drought plan guideline extra information – Drought permit and order application ready” [Annex 16].

69. This application preparation process should then be linked to and tested on its drought triggers to ensure that there is enough time to gather this information before a drought order is required to be implemented to ensure adequate supplies during a drought. Existing Agency drought planning guidance sets out the process for being ‘application ready’. All water companies are expected to be ‘application ready’ (as far as is

possible before the onset of a drought event), or propose a programme of work to demonstrate that they will take the appropriate steps to become application ready. This requirement is not new and is well established in drought planning.

70. Flows have only breached the HoF condition of (198 Ml/d) once since 1958 – for 15 days in 1976, which was a severe drought in the South East of England. The Agency has not seen sufficient evidence to support Southern Water’s assumption that it would have to apply for a drought order 1 in 3-5 years when flows reach 280Ml/d. There would be a high likelihood that, where the flows were reaching the levels they were in 1976 during a severe drought, that drought situation would meet the definition for “exceptional shortage of rain” that is required for an application for a drought order under section 73 of the Act.

71. The Agency has not seen any of the stated stochastically generated data that supports the assumptions set out in Southern Water’s objection and it has not seen the company’s revised drought plan to see how ‘application-ready’ its proposed drought orders or how appropriate its associated triggers are that start the drought order application process. Reducing the amount of time needed to prepare for a drought order application will mean that fewer drought order applications are made (i.e. the lead in time will be lower and more closely linked to drought triggers) and that fewer applications are rejected having not met the legal criteria. Southern Water has submitted its revised drought plan to the Secretary of State on 1 December 2017 and Defra is currently assessing its plan for sensitive information before it can be published for public consultation. The Agency expects its drought plan to show the progress the company has made in preparing for drought orders but the Agency has not had sufficient time to fully assess the plan.

72. It is universally accepted good practice for water companies to implement demand restrictions before seeking to abstract more from the environment, especially so in summer months. The Agency would expect Southern Water to do everything in its power to reduce demand and enhance supplies before seeking more water from the environment. Many demand management options do not affect Southern Water’s level of service, such as mains pressure reduction or more active leakage control. The

Agency expects that other drought measures set out in the drought plan will be implemented in a proactive and timely manner.

73. Although not a matter for this inquiry, Southern Water states that it would require assurances from Defra that it would not be expected to implement further restrictions to that set out in the drought plan, in the form of rota cuts and standpipes. Standpipes and rota cuts are not regarded as standard practice in drought management and require an emergency drought in order to be able to implement such measures. Emergency drought order applications are considered by the Secretary of State and require additional criteria to be met in order to be successful. This includes fully exhausting the powers of drought permits and orders before considering an emergency drought order. The existence of these criteria do not support Southern Water’s assumption that the Secretary of State would require an emergency drought order to be in place instead of an ordinary drought order. Requiring this level of demand restrictions would likely result from a severe and/or long lasting drought. Whilst it would not be appropriate for the Agency or the Secretary of State to categorically rule out serious water restrictions for any water company during a severe drought, the likelihood of requiring this measure to sustain water supplies is extremely low.

74. By 2021 the Agency will develop a new target flow regime for the River Itchen with Natural England, furthering the work done in RoC, and subsequently by WWF UK. Further assessment of the risks and impacts of its licences will be carried out by Southern Water in AMP7 (2020 – 25) to: assess risks of abstraction to River Itchen SSSI wetlands (in the Candover valley and the floodplain at Otterbourne); conduct a WFD no deterioration investigation; and to investigate the implications of applying Common Standards Monitoring Guidance to all the Itchen licences. This work may lead to further proposals for changes to the Itchen licences.

Section 7: List of Annexes

Annex 1 – Abstraction licences, 11/42/22.6/92 (Twyford, groundwater) [1a], 11/42/22.6/93 (Otterbourne, River Itchen) [1b] and 11/42/22.7/94 (Otterbourne groundwater) [1c and 1d]

Annex 2 – River Itchen Special Area of Conservation designation notification

Annex 3 – Environment Agency’s Habitats Directive Review of Consents Stage 3 Appropriate Assessment (2005)

Annex 4 – Environment Agency’s Site Action Plan for River Itchen SAC (2007)

Annex 5 – Southern Water’s Water Resource Management Plan (October 2014)

Annex 6 – Environment Agency letter to Southern Water dated 24 December 2015

Annex 7 – Defra letter to Southern Water dated 11 August 2016

Annex 8 – Environment Agency letter to Southern Water dated 27 September 2016

Annex 9 – European Commission guidance on Article 6(4) Habitats Directive (2012)

Annex 10 – Defra guidance on Article 6(4) Habitats Directive (December 2012)

Annex 11 – Environment Agency notice of variation served on Southern Water on 7 November 2016

Annex 12 – Draft proposed licences

Annex 13 – Representations from third parties responding to Environment Agency’s variation notice

Annex 14 – Southern Water’s notice of objection to Environment Agency’s variation proposals dated 15 December 2016

Annex 15 – Exceptional shortage of rain – Principles for the assessment of drought orders and permits (Environment Agency, January 2015)

Annex 16 – Drought plan guideline extra information – Drought permit and order application ready (Environment Agency, November 2016) 32

8:Glossary The technical terms described below are relevant to several sections of this Appeal Statement:

 ‘Renew’ or ‘renewal’: applying for a ‘new’ licence to replace a time-limited licence or to renew the time-limited part of a permanent licence. It is not the continuation of the previous licence or part thereof.  Time limited licences will be renewed provided that three tests for renewal are satisfied. The three renewal tests are: environmental sustainability is not in question; there is continued justification of need; and the water is used efficiently. The Agency’s ‘Policy 029_08: Time limiting abstraction licences’ is contained in Annex 5a of this report. As stated in paragraph 4.2 below, it does not mean that a renewal will always be on the same terms and conditions; conditions will be modified if circumstances require.  Continued environmental sustainability (Test 1): the continued abstraction will not have a significant impact on water resources, lawful water users or the environment.  Continued justification of need (Test 2): this checks to see if the abstraction is still required, based on the reasonable requirements of the licence holder and whether the maximum levels of abstraction authorised in the licence are still reasonable. The applicant must justify their need for water.  Efficient use of water (Test 3): this looks at the abstraction of the quantities specified in the licence. Inefficient use could mean higher costs and/ or lost production opportunities for a licence holder. The applicant must show they’re using water efficiently.  Relevant date: the relevant date is set as a date within 21 days from the date when a valid application was received. It triggers the determination, advertising (if needed) and other formal application processes to begin.

 Determination date: the date by which a decision is due to be made on an application. It is set as three months from the relevant date if the application does not require advertising; or four months from the relevant date if the application requires advertising. The determination date can be extended by agreement between the Agency and the applicant.  Abstraction Licensing Strategy are strategies for the management of water resources at a local level. They will make more information on water resources and licensing practice publicly available.  Common end date (CED): the expiry date that licences in a particular catchment will be given as stated in each Abstraction Licensing Strategy document.  ‘Hands-Off flow’ (HoF): a threshold based on the rate of flow in a watercourse. When the flow in the watercourse falls below this value no abstraction may take place. Hands off flow conditions are often placed on abstraction licences to protect the watercourse, during times of low flow, from the effects of abstraction.  ‘Hands-off level’ (HoL): a threshold based on the water level. When the water level in the watercourse falls below this value no abstraction may take place. Hands-off level conditions are often placed on abstraction licences to protect the watercourse, during times of low flow, from the effects of abstraction.  Ml/d: Megalitres per day  Q95 or Qn95: a flow that is exceeded 95% of the time – Q95 indicates a gauged flow whereas Qn95 indicates a naturalised flow (gauged flow adjusted to take account of abstractions and discharges).