Natural England Board
Meeting: 105 Date: 15 September 2021
Paper number: NEBPU 105 01
Title: Cotswold Water Park Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire – confirmation of notification
Lead/s: Alan Law, Deputy Chief Executive; Emma Johnson, West Midlands Area Manager; and Ben Fraser, Principal Adviser – Protected Sites
1 Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to seek approval to confirm the notification of Cotswold Water Park SSSI. The Natural England Board confirmation report is attached at Annex 1.
2 Recommendation 2.1 The Board is asked to: Approve confirmation of the notification of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI with modifications to the boundary (to remove 52 areas of land totalling 168.81 ha) and the citation. The recommended confirmed area of the SSSI is 1,906 ha. The documents recommended for confirmation are at section 3 of Annex 1. The other legal documents (list of operations requiring Natural England’s consent and statement of Natural England’s views about management) are recommended for confirmation without modification.
3 Report
3.1. Background 3.1.1. The Cotswold Water Park SSSI was notified on 7 January 2021 under section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. On the same day, notices were served under section 28D of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 proposing to remove the SSSI notification (de-notification) from parts of the previously notified Cotswold Water Park SSSI. There are no objections to the de-notification proposal so this will be approved for confirmation by the Director of Strategy and Government Advice acting under delegated authority. A decision upon whether to confirm the notification of the SSSI is required to enable confirmation papers to be served on or before 6 October 2021. 3.1.2. The Cotswold Water Park SSSI is a 40 square mile complex of former and current gravel workings on the borders of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Oxfordshire. 177 of these former and current mineral working waterbodies (‘lakes’) are included in the SSSI. It is considered to be of special interest for its: • non-breeding shoveler Spatula clypeata, gadwall Mareca strepera, pochard Aythya ferina, tufted duck A. fuligula, great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus, coot Fulica atra, green sandpiper Tringa ochropus and lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus; • assemblage of over 20,000 waterbirds during the non-breeding season; • diverse assemblage of breeding birds of lowland open waters and their margins and scrub; • breeding great crested grebe; little egret Egretta garzetta and little ringed plover Charadrius dubius; and
Page 1 of 83 • the aquatic plants: starry stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa, lesser bearded stonewort Chara curta; pointed stonewort Nitella mucronata and clustered stonewort Tolypella glomerata. 3.1.3. The Cotswold Water Park SSSI was previously notified on 28 June 1994. The enlarged Cotswold Water Park SSSI covers 2,074.81 ha and includes most of the land notified in 1994, with substantial extensions totalling 1,942 ha. It encompasses the full extent of the open waters and associated habitats, including core areas of nesting, feeding and roosting habitats for nationally important numbers of breeding and non-breeding waterbirds. This will stimulate the conservation of the Cotswold Water Park area by extending protection to a landscape scale, and by providing land managers and developers with certainty over the location and nature of the special nature conservation interests of the area. 3.1.4. The notification document (attached at section 2 of Annex 1) was issued on 7 January 2021 and explains why Cotswold Water Park is notified as a SSSI. The selection of this site against the relevant guidelines is dealt with fully in the supporting information document to the SSSI notification (also attached at section 2 of Annex 1). 3.2 Issues 3.2.1 The Cotswold Water Park SSSI has 283 owners and occupiers and is the subject of 54 outstanding objections. The period for making objections and representations ran from 7 January 2021 to 7 June 2021. 3.2.2 A number of landowner notification packs were returned to Natural England due to out-of- date information being held by HM Land Registry. Considerable effort was made to find alternative addresses and resend these packs. 3.2.3 A number of new landowners/occupiers were identified later than the notification date and one owner (already known to Natural England) was omitted due to an administrative error. They were all given at least the statutory minimum of three months from the date they were notified, to submit their representations. Consequently, the final period to submit an objection or representation for the owner who was identified latest will expire on 18 September 2021; that owner has already submitted an objection. 3.2.4 Annex 1 describes the site and its special interest, and considers the objections and representations made in respect of the 7 January 2021 notification. The grounds for the objections have been carefully considered by officers of Natural England.
Page 2 of 83 Annex 1
Natural England Board Confirmation Report: Cotswold Water Park SSSI, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Oxfordshire.
Contents
Section 1 Report to the Board of Natural England
Section 2 Notification and supporting information documents
Section 3 Amended SSSI documents for confirmation
Section 4 Executive Committee paper and minutes
Section 5 Index and key correspondence
Section 6 Detail maps of recommended boundary modifications
Page 3 of 83 Section 1 Report to the Board of Natural England meeting on 15 September 2021
Cotswold Water Park Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
1.1 Executive summary The Cotswold Water Park straddles the borders of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Oxfordshire. It is the UK’s largest marl (lime-rich) lake system. The lakes are mostly in two blocks. A larger grouping to the west is centred on the village of Ashton Keynes. A smaller block extends south and south - east of Fairford and around Lechlade. More recently pits have been excavated in the central area, linking the two blocks. A Cotswold Water Park SSSI, consisting of a series of 10 lakes selected for their ‘lake feature’ was notified in 1994. The re-notified Cotswold Water Park SSSI includes almost all of the area of these previously notified SSSIs. It adds a range of special interest features in relation to birds of open waters and their margins in a mosaic with scrub. The special interest of the overall area sits within a single landscape-scale designation, covering 2,074.81 ha, combining the previously notified SSSI with substantial extensions (totalling 1,942 ha). This encompasses key elements of the open waters, marginal habitats and associated scrub, including core areas of nesting, feeding and roosting habitats for nationally important numbers of breeding and non-breeding wetland and scrub bird species. This will stimulate wider conservation in the Cotswold Water Park area by extending protection to a landscape scale, and by providing developers and the recreational interests with certainty over the location and nature of the special nature conservation interests of the area, and how they can help to manage and maintain them. Discussions with owners and occupiers started in 2014. A formal pre-consultation with 435 owners and occupiers was carried out on 13 February 2020 after which the draft boundary was refined. The notification document issued on 7 January 2021 explains why Cotswold Water Park is notified by Natural England as a SSSI. The Cotswold Water Park has 283 owners and occupiers. The notification is the subject of 43 unresolved objections and 11 objections that are resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended modifications to the boundary. A further 16 representations were received, of which 13 expressed support for the SSSI. The grounds for the objections and representations have been carefully considered by officers of Natural England. Officers recommend to the Board of Natural England that the notification of the SSSI under section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be confirmed with modifications identified in objections and representations and by the area team to: • the boundary, to remove 52 areas of land (total area of 168.81 ha) which officers recommend should not be considered to be of special scientific interest; • the maps, to clarify that the site excludes raised or suspended structures such as bridges, jetties, landing stages and decking associated with lakeside properties; • the citation, to reflect the revised area figure (1,906 ha); and • the citation, to include little grebe in the description of the breeding bird assemblages. The modified boundary map and citation recommended for confirmation are attached at section 3 of this report. In all other respects, officers recommend that the matters specified in the 7 January 2021 notification (the list of operations requiring Natural England’s consent and statement of Natural England’s views about the management of the SSSI; see pages 12-17 of the SSSI notification document (in section 2 of this report) should be confirmed without modification.
1.2 Introduction The Cotswold Water Park SSSI was notified on 7 January 2021 under section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The enlarged SSSI includes most of the land notified in 1994 and extensions totalling 1,942 ha.
Page 4 of 83 Natural England has a duty to notify land as SSSI where it is of the opinion that land is of special interest. Having formed an opinion that the land is of special interest, Natural England has discretion1 as to whether to enlarge a previously notified SSSI under section 28C. That discretion was exercised in this case. This report describes the site and its special interest, and considers the objections and representations made in respect of the 7 January 2021 notification.
1.3 Site description and special interest The Cotswold Water Park is a 40 square mile complex of 177 lakes formed by gravel workings on the borders of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Oxfordshire. It is an entirely man-made landscape and the UK’s largest marl (lime-rich) lake system. The lakes are mostly in two blocks. A larger grouping to the west is centred on the village of Ashton Keynes. A smaller block extends to the south and east of Fairford. More recently pits have been excavated in the central area, linking the two blocks. Cotswold Water Park sits on a large post-glacial shingle deposit which, prior to the 1930s, was overlain by small villages set amongst extensive farming. Since the 1930s an extensive series of gravel workings has been, and continues to be, dug for the mineral resource. Because the water table is so close to the surface, the workings quickly flood after extraction ceases, leaving bodies of open water. The lakes form an extensive series of shallow and deep open waters which occur in association with a range of marginal habitats including sparsely-vegetated islands, gravel bars and shorelines, reedbed, marsh, wet ditches, rush pasture, semi-natural and improved grasslands and woodland This range of habitats provides valuable nesting, resting and feeding conditions which support nationally important numbers and assemblages of birds in the breeding and non-breeding seasons. Some of the lakes support a roost of gull species in nationally important numbers.
Figure 1. Lake 74 (credit: Natalie Jaworska)
1 Where Natural England is of the opinion that an area of land related to an existing SSSI is of special interest, its discretion is limited to the mode of notification (new site, addition or enlargement), not whether to notify at all.
Page 5 of 83 Alongside this wildlife interest the open water has been used for recreational activities. Many of the lakes are fished, and others host water skiing, sailing, canoeing and open-water swimming. A few have wildfowling and some are nature reserves. Public and permissive access is available across much of the area. The presence of so many recreational activities has attracted developers and many lakes have commercial accommodation developments. These range from private luxury fishing chalets to ‘villages’ of lodge accommodation. The open landscape, with its uniform gravel substrate, was ideal for airfield construction. The last surviving one, RAF Fairford, sits in the middle of the Cotswold Water Park. It currently hosts a NATO mission of US Visiting Forces, with the long and exceptionally wide runway allowing use by large military aircraft.
1.3.1 Non-breeding birds The extensive areas of open water, reedbeds and marginal habitats provide safe feeding and roosting opportunities for large numbers of waterbirds throughout much of the year. The site is of special interest for its non-breeding populations of eight species (shoveler Spatula clypeata, gadwall Mareca strepera, pochard Aythya ferina, tufted duck A. fuligula, great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus, coot Fulica atra, green sandpiper Tringa ochropus and lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus) and an assemblage of over 20,000 non-breeding waterbirds. The assemblage includes post-breeding flocks, winter visitors and birds on spring and autumn passage. In addition to the aforementioned species that are reasons for notification in their own right, it includes large numbers of wigeon Mareca penelope, mallard Anas platyrhynchos, teal A. crecca and lapwing Vanellus vanellus. The substantial gull roosts as well as lesser black-backed gulls include large numbers of black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus, common gull Larus canus and herring gull L. argentatus. Tufted ducks and pochard are associated with the deeper lakes, whereas dabbling ducks such as wigeon and gadwall prefer shallower habitats. Gulls roost on the largest open undisturbed lakes.
Figure 2. Gadwall (credit: Neil Pike)
1.3.2 Breeding birds The site is of special interest for its breeding populations of three species (great crested grebe, little ringed plover Charadrius dubius and little egret Egretta garzetta). The wet habitats and adjacent scrub support a diverse assemblage of breeding birds of lowland open waters and their margins and scrub. Unvegetated shingle and islands support nesting common terns Sterna hirundo, black-headed gull and little ringed plover. The open waters and their margins support
Page 6 of 83 great crested grebe, little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis, mute swan Cygnus olor, tufted duck, gadwall, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, pochard, garganey Spatula querquedula, shoveler and water rail Rallus aquaticus. Heronries within the Cotswold Water Park support grey heron Ardea cinerea, little egret and more recently great white egret Ardea alba. Large numbers of reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus, sedge warblers A. schoenobaenus, Cetti’s warblers Cettia cetti and reed buntings Emberiza schoeniclus breed in the reeds and scrub, and cuckoos Cuculus canorus are common. Kingfishers Alcedo atthis nest in exposed banks. Yellow wagtails Motacilla flava nest in small numbers, with others breeding nearby and feeding within the site. Scrub in a mosaic with open grassland supports populations of garden warbler Sylvia borin, lesser whitethroat S. curruca, long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus, bullfinch Pyrrhula, grasshopper warbler Locustella naevia, linnet Linaria cannabina and yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella. There is a strong population of nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos.
Figure 3. Cetti's Warbler (credit Allan Drewitt).
1.3.3 Stoneworts
Figure 4. Clustered stonewort Tolypella glomerata
Eleven species of stonewort (charophyte) are present within the Cotswold Water Park. One of
Page 7 of 83 these, starry stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa, is Vulnerable and Nationally Rare. Three of the remaining species, lesser bearded stonewort Chara curta, pointed stonewort Nitella mucronata and clustered stonewort Tolypella glomerata are Nationally Scarce. Britain and Ireland represent the world stronghold for lesser bearded stonewort and the population within the Cotswold Water Park is the largest in Britain. Clustered stonewort is an early succession species which requires a constant turnover of waterbodies as occurs at the Cotswold Water Park. As a result, the population within the site is one of the strongest in Britain.
1.4 SSSI boundary as notified The boundary has been drawn to include land supporting the features of special interest and those areas required to ensure the long-term sustainability of these features. With the exception of a small number of pits which have been or are being infilled the SSSI includes all water bodies within the Cotswold Water Park that have been registered and given a number for counting as part of the Wetland Birds Survey and where open water was present in 2017. For active mineral workings the approved restoration plan, which is an integral part of the planning permission, was used to inform the boundary. Where a gravel working has a planning obligation for restoration to habitat which will support the interest features it is included within the boundary. The boundary includes marginal and surrounding vegetation important as bird feeding sites but has been drawn to exclude blocks of unsuitable habitat such as built structures, gardens, mown amenity grassland of high recreational usage, plantation woodland, major tracks and areas of hardstanding. Where built developments such as blocks of holiday lodges are present on the lake edge with overhanging structures, the boundary has been taken as the lake edge, but with raised or suspended structures (such as jetties and decking) excluded from the SSSI2. The boundary of the SSSI has been drawn to follow the nearest physical feature on the ground where possible. In some places no OS boundary feature is present that would prevent inclusion of significant areas of land not supporting the interest features. Where there is a clear current habitat divide this has been used as the boundary but in a few places straight lines between fixed points have been drawn to exclude unsuitable areas.
1.5 Assessment of Cotswold Water Park SSSI against the SSSI selection guidelines The selection of Cotswold Water Park SSSI was assessed against the Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Part 1: Rationale, Operational Approach and Criteria for Site Selection (JNCC, 2013) and Part 2: Detailed guidelines for habitats and species groups, hereafter referred to as ‘the Guidelines’. The assessment of interest features using the relevant guidelines was supported by Natural England’s specialists and, as part of the notification approval process, was scrutinised by the Chief Scientist. The assessment is dealt with fully in the supporting information to the SSSI notification document, which is attached at section 2 of this report.
1.6 Procedures 1.6.1 Pre-notification The Cotswold Water Park was added to our published designation programme on Gov.uk on 7 February 2018. The 1994 notification of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI was based on plant communities associated with marl lakes, although the presence of significant waterbird populations was mentioned on the citation. The main driver for reviewing the SSSI was the large assemblage of non-breeding waterbirds using the Cotswold Water Park. Data from the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), hosted and administered by the British Trust for Ornithology, indicated the presence of nationally important numbers of waterbirds.
2 A modification to the boundary map annotations is recommended to clarify the exclusion of raised and suspended structures – see section 1.65.
Page 8 of 83 With the knowledge that there were nationally important numbers of waterbirds present, a review of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI (as notified in 1994) commenced in 2013. The review considered the Cotswold Water Park as a single ecosystem based upon the way in which non-breeding waterbirds are likely to use different lakes at different times of the day, in different seasons and weather conditions, and in response to disturbance. Pre-notification communications with known owners and occupiers commenced in 2014/15 with requests for access permission to carry out surveys for charophytes and breeding birds, for the stated purpose of informing a review of the SSSI boundary. Where access permission was refused, or where no response could be obtained, Natural England chose not to use its statutory powers of entry. Communication with those principal owners and occupiers for whom we had contact details (those with management control or influence over whole lakes) continued during and after this evidence gathering phase. Natural England attended a meeting of the Cotswold Water Park Operators Group (a group representing all the commercial interests in the Cotswold Water Park) on 17 September 2018 to talk about the proposed renotification, and information about the re-notification was also put in the Operators Group newsletter. A separate meeting was held on 22 March 2019 for the mineral operators in the Cotswold Water Park. Site visits to Cotswold Water Park were made by Caroline Cotterell (Director, Strategy Implementation) on 28 June 2018, Richard Cornish (Chief Operating Officer) on 6 August 2019 and Tony Juniper (Natural England Chair) on 15 January 2020. All the parish councils with land within or abutting the boundary of the wider Cotswold Water Park (20) were written to on 11 December 2019 explaining the proposed renotification. Two open drop- in events were held for the public, one in the west at the Gateway Centre near South Cerney on 9 January 2020 and the other in the east at Fairford Community Hall on 16 January 2020. These were advertised through the parish councils and local press. A Land Registry search was conducted in January 2018, supplemented by a further search in September 2019. All owners and occupiers identified from these searches as within the draft SSSI boundary were contacted by letter, including the draft boundary map, on 13 February 2020 with an invitation to discuss the notification and its implications for them. 1.6.2 Notification The SSSI was notified on 7 January 2021, following approval by the Chief Executive on 1 December 2020. Land registry data was refreshed in November 2020. In addition to despatching notification documents by recorded delivery to 322 owners and occupiers and 12 statutory bodies, three notices were posted on site where the ownership was not recorded by the Land Registry. A notice was also placed in the ‘Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard’. A press release was issued at the start of formal consultation. A further 80 observing bodies were informed of the notification on 7 January 2021. The consultation documents and an online survey were available on Citizenspace (our online consultation portal) from 7 January 2021. The period for making objections and representations ran from 7 January to 7 June 2021. In recognition of the volume of evidence supporting the notification an extra month was added to the standard 4-month consultation period (the minimum legal period is 3 months) to give owner occupiers additional time to scrutinise the evidence. Following the notification, Natural England was made aware of a number of changes in tenure , or tenure contact details, which took place prior to notification. All these owners and occupiers were sent notification packages, the latest of these being on 23 April 2021. One owner, missed due to an administrative error, was notified on 18 June 2021. Objections to the notification of Cotswold Water Park SSSI under section 28C were received from 54 owners, occupiers, statutory authorities and interested parties, of which 43 are wholly or partially unresolved: • Ministry of Defence • Hills Quarry Products/Hills UK Ltd • Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Limited
Page 9 of 83 • Cotswold Waters Limited • Mr A Lindley • The Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust • Mr B Knight • Ms G Smith and Mr S Swiokla • Cotswold Water Park Hire Ltd • Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd • Whitefriars Sailing Club • Cirencester Water Ski • Mr B Ellison • Keuka Waterski • Mrs A Scott • Mr A K Bowley • Aspen Lake Ltd • Coln Park LLP/Lakes by Yoo • Breedon Group • Mr M Thomas (Watermark Ltd) • Mr B Sparkes and Mr L Sparkes • James, Susan and Richard Seeds • Mr J F & Mrs S F Ellis • Mr N C & Mrs A Dorricott • Pinnacle Trustees Ltd • Mr R D James • Mr Ross F Baker (Ross Manufacturing Ltd) • Mr S Ward • Mr T Bankes • Grasshopper Trading Limited • Berite Sawmills • Wildmoor Waters and The Willows • Aggregate Industries UK Limited • Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises • B J & C E Ford • Emerald Development & Consulting • British Aggregates Association • Land and Mineral Management • Cotswold Canals Trust and its supporters • Wilts & Berks Canal Trust • The Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP • Mr E Keyser and Mr N Keyser • The Lower Mill Estate Ltd The 11 remaining objections are confirmed as having been resolved, subject to the Board agreeing officers’ recommended boundary modifications: • Lord de Mauley • George Ponsonby • Conservation Builders Ltd • Cotswold District Council • Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd • Cotswold Lakes Trust • Mr G J and Mrs A Watkins • Greatmoor Lakes Ltd • Bowmoor Sailing Club • Anonymous owner OO/359 • Anonymous owner OO/305
Page 10 of 83 Representations were received from a further 16 owners, occupiers, statutory authorities and interested parties, 13 of which expressed support for the notification (see section 1.63).
1.6.3 Decision The Board is required to take a decision upon whether to confirm the notification of Cotswold Water Park SSSI under section 28C to enable confirmation papers to be served on or before 6th October 2021.
1.7 Objections and representations Objections and representations to the notification of Cotswold Water Park SSSI have been received from the owners, occupiers, statutory authorities and interested parties detailed in sections 1.9-1.63. The land subject to each of the objections is shown in maps at section 6 of this report. The key correspondence relating to each objection and representation is presented at section 5 of this report.
1.8 Common grounds for objection Twelve grounds for objection were raised by more than one objector, particularly (but not exclusively) those represented by land agents, solicitors and ecological consultants. These issues are presented in Table 1 for ease of reference and to avoid unnecessary duplication. In some cases (for instance, where the issue relates to the inclusion of specific areas of land or to concerns about land management activities) there is a more detailed assessment specific to the individual objector. Where this is the case, the relevant issues and responses are presented in sections 1.9- 1.62.
Page 11 of 83 Table 1 Common grounds for objection Ground 2 – Ground 3 – Ground 4 – Objector Ground 1 – boundary qualification for qualification non- qualification determination waterbird assemblage breeding birds charophytes Unresolved objections Ministry of Defence ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Hills Group Limited ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mr A Lindley ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mr B Knight ✓ Ms G Smith and Mr S Swiokla ✓ Mr B Sparkes and Mr L Sparkes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ James, Susan and Richard Seeds ✓ ✓ Mr S Ward ✓ Grasshopper Trading Limited ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ B J & C E Ford ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Emerald Development & Consulting ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ British Aggregates Association ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Resolved objections Lord de Mauley ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ George Ponsonby ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Page 12 of 83 Table 1 Common grounds for objection (continued) Ground 5 – Ground 6 – bird hazard Ground 7 – financial Ground 8 – discretion Objector ORNECs management impact under S28C Unresolved objections Ministry of Defence ✓ ✓ Hills Group Limited ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd ✓ ✓ ✓ Mr A Lindley ✓ ✓ The Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust ✓ ✓ Mr B Knight ✓ ✓ Aspen Lake Ltd ✓ ✓ Breedon Group ✓ Mr M Thomas (Watermark Ltd) ✓ Mr B Sparkes and Mr L Sparkes ✓ ✓ James, Susan and Richard Seeds ✓ Mr N C & Mrs A Dorricott ✓ Mr R D James ✓ Mr Ross F Baker (Ross Manufacturing Ltd) ✓ Mr S Ward ✓ Mr T Bankes ✓ Grasshopper Trading Limited ✓ B J & C E Ford ✓ ✓ Emerald Development & Consulting ✓ ✓ British Aggregates Association ✓ ✓ Land and Mineral Management ✓ Cotswold Canals Trust and its supporters ✓ The Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP ✓ ✓ ✓ Resolved objections Lord de Mauley ✓ ✓ ✓ George Ponsonby ✓ ✓ ✓
Page 13 of 83 Table 1 Common grounds for objection (continued) Objector Ground 11 – Ground 12 – failure of Ground 9 – pre Ground 10 – SSSI designation is previous designation notification process notification process unnecessary Unresolved objections Hills Group Limited ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mr A Lindley ✓ ✓ The Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust Mr B Knight ✓ ✓ Aspen Lake Ltd ✓ Breedon Group ✓ ✓ Mr B Sparkes and Mr L Sparkes ✓ ✓ ✓ James, Susan and Richard Seeds ✓ ✓ ✓ Mr N C & Mrs A Dorricott ✓ ✓ Mr R D James ✓ ✓ ✓ Mr Ross F Baker (Ross Manufacturing Ltd) ✓ ✓ Mr S Ward ✓ ✓ Mr T Bankes ✓ ✓ Grasshopper Trading Limited ✓ ✓ B J & C E Ford ✓ ✓ ✓ Emerald Development & Consulting ✓ ✓ British Aggregates Association ✓ ✓ ✓ Land and Mineral Management ✓ The Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Resolved objections Lord de Mauley ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ George Ponsonby ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Page 14 of 83 1.8.1 Ground 1: Boundary determination Summary of concerns Natural England has not carried out a lake by lake analysis of data to determine the inclusion of each lake. No spatial analysis has been carried out to determine the distribution of interest features across the SSSI. Natural England has not demonstrated that birds move between lakes. A number of objectors have quoted the following statement from Part 1, Section 8.1, p34 of the guidelines 3: “…Whatever variations in importance may be found within a site, all parts must function to protect the standard of special interest, so that loss of or damage to any part of the site would detract significantly from the value of the whole….” Summary of responses Natural England has scientific evidence in the form of one or more of the following for all lakes that are recommended for inclusion within a confirmed SSSI boundary: • Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) count data; • breeding bird surveys; and • charophyte surveys. The notified bird features are the primary determinant for the site boundary. There is no boundary guidance in Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs - Part 2: Chapter 17 Birds, therefore the general boundary guidance in Part 1: Rationale, Operational Approach and Criteria for Site Selection applies. The part of this guidance the objectors have quoted (Part 1, Section 8.1, p34) is incomplete. The full text is as follows: “When designating or reviewing SSSIs, the boundaries and integrity of a site should be determined in a way that enables the SNCB to explain the boundary selected, and the site’s overall integrity. In practice, this means that site boundaries must be defined in accordance with a number of requirements and conditions, which are considered in the paragraphs below. Whatever variations in importance may be found within a site, all parts must function to protect the standard of special interest, so that loss of or damage to any part of the site would detract significantly from the value of the whole. The loss or damage to any part of a site cannot be justified by the survival of the larger fraction of the site, since, once the process of fragmentation has begun, there are no logical stopping points short of total loss of the site. We will not set arbitrary limits of acceptable loss as this would fundamentally undermine the consistency of approach which is the credible basis for SSSI selection. Small incursions into protected sites are often disproportionately large in their direct ecological effects. The concept of site integrity may seem far-fetched when the defining boundaries are artificial, but any further intrusions make an already unsatisfactory situation worse. The smaller and more fragmented a site, the more important it is to ensure that still further reduction does not occur”. Part 1, Section 8.2, p34 also provides further advice as follows: “SSSI boundaries should be drawn to encompass the special features of the site and all land necessary to ensure the sustainability of those features. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of whole management units, entire ecological units and supporting processes (such as hydrology or sediment supply). Boundaries should take account of dynamic processes (such as active coastal and floodplain geomorphology)”. For the reasons set out in the supporting information document and summarised below, the complex of lakes included within the boundary is considered to function as a single ecological unit for breeding and non-breeding birds. The principle of including a number of geographically discrete areas within a SSSI boundary is well established. For example the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI extends for 35km and includes 74 lakes. Different wetland bird species make use of different
3 Bainbridge, I., Brown, A., Burnett, N., Corbett, P., Cork, C., Ferris, R., Howe, M., Maddock, A., Mountford, E. & Pritchard, S. (Eds.), 2013. Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs - Part 1: Rationale, Operational Approach and Criteria for Site Selection, JNCC, Peterborough.
Page 15 of 83 areas within sites at different times within and between years for roosting and feeding in response to changes in environmental conditions and disturbance. In determining the boundary of the SSSI Natural England has taken account of the behaviour and habitat requirements of the species concerned in addition to the influence of human disturbance. The latter is particularly important for a site such as the Cotswold Water Park SSSI where levels of disturbance from recreational activities, tourism and bird hazard management are unpredictable and locally high. Having established that the lakes are a single ecological unit, composite WeBS data for the lakes included within the boundary has been used to determine the waterbird features which are of special interest. Individual lake data from the breeding bird survey has been amalgamated to determine the qualifying breeding bird assemblage. In addition to the existing lakes within the Cotswold Water Park SSSI a number of currently active quarries are included within the site boundary. As stated in the supporting information document this is because they currently support interest features and have a planning obligation to be restored to habitat which will continue to support the notified features of the site. It would not be appropriate to set an arbitrary ‘threshold’ for the contribution that a particular lake makes to the overall special interest to support its inclusion in the SSSI. As described above, the boundary has been drawn to include the whole of the complex of lakes that supports the special interest as a single ecological unit. For the same reason, it would not be appropriate to select a subset of lakes which collectively support a minimum level of interest to meet thresholds in the SSSI selection guidelines. To do so would exclude areas of demonstrable special interest without any scientific justification. We have shared lake breeding bird and charophyte survey data with objectors. We have also made them aware that they can obtain WeBS data for lakes in their ownership free of charge from the BTO. Officers have reviewed, shared and explained the evidence and how it has been used to determine the boundary.
1.8.2 Ground 2: Qualification for waterbird assemblage Summary of concerns • Objectors disagree with Natural England’s interpretation of Chapter 17, section 3.11, p7 of the guidelines4 which provides guidance on the circumstances where determination of regularity of use can be based on fewer counts. • Natural England has provided inadequate data to demonstrate that the SSSI regularly supports a wintering waterbird assemblage of >20,000 birds. WeBS counts do not exceed the >20,000 threshold. Qualification is dependent upon the inclusion of gull counts from the 2017/18 winter gull roost survey. WeBS data shows a decline in numbers from 2014/15; 2019/20 data is now available and should be used to provide a revised 5-year mean. • Concerns have been raised about the validity of the winter gull roost count for Lake 16 as a typing error stated no count undertaken in the summary table of the survey report. Counts for some lakes were described as pre-roosts. Summary of responses Natural England disagrees with objectors’ interpretation of Chapter 17, section 3.11, p7 of the Guidelines which states the following and clearly uses the word ‘or’ to distinguish the separate instances where areas may be considered suitable on the basis of fewer counts: “In some instances, however, for species occurring in very remote areas or which are particularly rare, or where there are particular constraints on the capacity to undertake surveys, areas may be considered suitable on the basis of fewer counts. For some countries or sites where there is very little information, single counts can help establish the relative importance of the site for a species”.
4 Drewitt, A.L., Whitehead, S. and Cohen, S. 2020. Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Part 2: Detailed Guidelines for Habitats and Species Groups. Chapter 17: Birds (Version 1.1). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Page 16 of 83 The constraints in the case of Cotswold Water Park are the survey methodology for roosting gulls i.e. all counts must take place within the same 1.5 hours preceding sunset. These challenges are also referenced in the survey report5. Table 2 shows WeBS annual peak count data (2014/15 to 2018/19) for all lakes within the SSSI boundary and demonstrates regular use. Counts for non-native species and gulls have been removed from this data. Variation in counts between years is expected. A five-year peak mean of the WeBS counts (16,283) has been used to take account of variation. Natural England does not agree that the counts show a sustained decline in numbers. Data for 19/20 was not available at the time of notification so could not be used to assess the special interest of the site.
Table 2 WeBS annual peak counts for Cotswold Water Park SSSI 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 15,376 18,629 17,273 16,730 13,415
WeBS will significantly undercount the number of gulls using the site as it is carried out in the morning just after dawn when many of the gulls will have left the site to forage further afield. Winter roost counts are undertaken in the 1.5 hours preceding sunset and give a more accurate indication of site use. In 2017/18 a coordinated winter gull roost count was undertaken. Further unpublished roost counts, which were made available to objectors, were undertaken in January 2019 and November 2020. The counts on those occasions were carried out at fewer locations than the 2017/18 survey. Table 3 shows the counts from these three surveys.
Table 3 Winter gull roost counts Date Total number of gulls 2017/18 20,848 2019 32,212 2020 18,284
Published data, referenced in the 2017/18 winter gull survey report, is also available from the national wintering gull survey. Surveys of gull roosts were carried out across three winters throughout the UK (2003/04-2005/06). ‘South Cerney’ is referenced as a site supporting at least 20,000 gulls with a total of 20,272 gulls. This data together with the surveys in Table 3 demonstrates that the SSSI has supported a nationally important number of gulls over a prolonged period and that the 2017/18 counts are consistent with the counts from other surveys. Adding the WeBS mean peak count to the 2017/18 gull count results in a total waterbird count of 37,131 birds confirming that the site regularly supports an assemblage of over 20,000 waterbirds. With regard to concerns raised about the gull count for Lake 16 and use of counts described as pre roosts Natural England confirmed with the observer (Kim Milsom) and author (Gareth Harris) that the count for Lake 16 was 13,102 as stated in the report. Counts listed as pre roosts were not included in the data used to support qualification.
1.8.3 Ground 3: Qualification for non-breeding birds Summary of concerns • Regularity of use has not been demonstrated for lesser black-backed gull. • An inappropriately low threshold for national significance has been used for green sandpiper. A threshold of 50 birds should have been used. UK population thresholds for national importance are out of date. • Data has been compiled by volunteers and Natural England did not apply appropriate weight to the data to reflect its limitations.
5 Cotswold Water Park Coordinated Winter Gull Roost Counts – Winter 2017-2018 (Harris, G).
Page 17 of 83 Summary of responses Counts of lesser black-backed gulls from surveys in 2017/18, 2019 and 2020 are summarised below in Table 4.
Table 4 Counts of lesser black-backed gulls Date Count % of GB population 2017/18 1,317 1.1 2019 6,710 5.6 2020 2,207 1.8
The national wintering gull survey (2003/04 – 2005/06) cites a total of 5,800 lesser black-backed gulls at ‘South Cerney’ which at current national population estimates represents 4.8% of the GB population. This data together with the surveys in 2017/18, 2019 and 2020 demonstrates that the SSSI has supported qualifying numbers of lesser black-backed gulls over a prolonged period. The Guidelines, Chapter 17, sections 3.2 and 3.3, set out the selection criteria for aggregations of breeding and non-breeding birds. The thresholds for national importance are calculated from agreed national population estimates published by the Avian Population Estimates Panel (APEP) 6. APEP is a collaboration between the UK statutory conservation agencies and relevant non- governmental organisations. The role of APEP is to collate the best estimates of breeding and non- breeding bird population size and present a consensus view on the most appropriate estimates for relevant conservation applications, such as defining thresholds for statutory site designations. Population estimates for the majority of the non-breeding notified species are for the period 2012/13-2016/17. For green sandpiper a threshold of 50 birds has been used to inform selection of sites of international importance but is not supported by the SSSI selection guidance which states that: “Localities which regularly support 1% or more of the total British non-breeding population of any native species in any season and non-breeding waterbird assemblages of over 20,000 individuals will qualify for SSSI selection”. Several objectors have questioned the validity of WeBS data. WeBS is a partnership jointly funded by the British Trust for Ornithology, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is the UK national non-breeding waterbird monitoring scheme, well respected and used to inform policy, designation and major development proposals. Natural England considers WeBS survey data to be robust and reliable to underpin notification.
1.8.4 Ground 4: Qualification for charophytes Summary of concerns • Nitellopsis obtusa has not been confirmed as extant since 2013 and there is insufficient recent data to justify its selection. • Reports summarising the status and distribution of aquatic plants do not cover all lakes. A lake by lake assessment is required to identify the lakes which should be included for their plant assemblages/species. • Given the previously notified SSSI was in unfavourable declining condition, as a result of poor water quality and invasive species, it is illogical to suggest that other areas are unfavourable to encourage stoneworts. Summary of responses Charophyte records from 2012 onwards are considered to be recent.
6 Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds Volume 113, 69-104 (Woodward, I., Aebischer, N., Burnell, D., Eaton, M., Frost, T., Hall, C., Stroud, D. and Noble, D), 2020.
Page 18 of 83 Charophyte survey data is available for 134 of the lakes within SSSI boundary. Although the four charophyte species form part of the reasons for notification there is no expectation that they occur in every part of the SSSI. The potential for natural colonisation or recolonisation of waterbodies as ecological conditions change through creation, restoration, succession or management is considerable given the extent of the site. This is seen as a positive site attribute within the Guidelines (Chapter 15, section 1.2.7, p4) offering both the opportunity for rotational management and by providing greater resilience through the maintenance of dynamic metapopulations (Chapter 15, section 2.2.5, p6). Boundary setting advice within the Guidelines (Chapter 15, section 2.4, p6) further emphasises the importance of sites which are large, contain numerous waterbodies including currently unoccupied ones and waterbodies in various developmental stages. The sustainability of the site as a whole is evidenced by the long history of stonewort presence and diversity, by the diversity of ecological conditions and by the proximity of a large number of waterbodies enabling resilient metapopulations to exploit dynamic habitats as conditions evolve. With regard to the condition of the previously notified SSSI and suitability of lakes, within the enlarged site, to support charophytes the case for notification is based on surveys carried out in 2014/15, 2017/18 and 2019/20 by the national expert on stoneworts.
1.8.5 Ground 5: Operations Requiring Natural England’s Consent (ORNECs) Summary of concerns • It is not clear if any thought has been given to the appropriateness of the use of a generic list of operations, for a site which is manmade, under very active management and owned by multiple landowners operating a diverse range of economic activities. The list is extensive in scope, highly restrictive, inflexible (particularly where action is required in an emergency), and administratively burdensome. • Restoration and bird hazard management obligations are incompatible with the ORNECs. Summary of responses The supporting information details how Natural England has selected the ORNECs which apply to this site and at least one reason for the inclusion of each of the operations. Inclusion of an activity on the list of operations requiring consent does not mean it is viewed negatively. Natural England recognises that the interest features of the SSSI have developed alongside the activities of landowners and local businesses. Our approach from the outset has been to engage with land owners and occupiers and reassure them that current activities, both personal and commercial, on and around their lake(s) will be able to continue, provided they do not harm or damage the interest features. Many of the activities currently carried out on the lakes, including the restoration of currently active quarries, are covered by planning permissions, and as such are not affected by the notification and ORNECs. Section 28P(4) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes provision for activities listed in the ORNECs, in response to an emergency. Natural England recognises that the need to apply for consent for the list of activities within the ORNECs is a new and unfamiliar requirement for many of the owner occupiers. We have put in place processes to ensure we are able to assess notices as quickly as possible and, where appropriate, grant consent for a five year period in order to reduce the administrative burden for owner occupiers and facilitate routine management. Not all owners have engaged in this process.
1.8.6 Ground 6: Bird hazard management Summary of concerns Some of the lakes within the SSSI are subject to Section 106 agreements or planning conditions requiring bird hazard management for the purposes of air safety. Owner occupiers have expressed concern regarding their ability to fulfil these obligations when consent is required for the activities required to carry out bird control.
Page 19 of 83 Summary of responses We fully recognise the need for air safety. Bird hazard management has taken place for many years across a number of lakes which continue to support the interest features. A Section 106 agreement/planning condition requiring bird hazard management does not provide reasonable excuse under S.28P(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have provided guidance to the MOD on how to continue with these activities within the existing legislative framework. We have also committed to work with the MOD and owner occupiers required to carry our bird hazard management, not covered by current licences or the MOD’s assent, to discuss options for bird management going forward.
1.8.7 Ground 7: Financial impact Summary of concerns Natural England should have carried out an assessment of the financial impact of the notification on landowners and businesses. Concern has been expressed regarding funding for future management, the potential for land to be reduced in value and that designation will restrict income which could have been received from Biodiversity Net Gain. Notification will restrict future development opportunities within the Cotswold Water Park. Summary of responses The courts have been clear that Natural England cannot take account of socio-economic issues when forming the opinion whether an area of land is of special scientific interest or not. Natural England recognises that the interest features of the SSSI have developed alongside the activities of land owners and local businesses. Our approach from the outset has been to engage with land owners and occupiers and reassure them that current activities, both personal and commercial, on and around their lake(s) will be able to continue, provided they do not harm or damage the interest features. We do not anticipate any significant change in management. However, where land managers wish to enhance the wildlife interest on their land, we will work with them to access environmental funding schemes. Biodiversity Net gain is not yet policy. However, there are opportunities for future funding via the new ELMS schemes and for land adjacent to the SSSI to generate income via Biodiversity Net Gain. The impact of designation on the value of land is variable with examples of positive, negligible and negative impacts.
1.8.8 Ground 8: Discretion under S28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Summary of concerns The power for Natural England to enlarge a SSSI is discretionary. Natural England has a duty to consider socio-economic interests and whether extending the SSSI is necessary and proportionate regulatory activity. Excluding lakes or groups of lakes would be in accordance with the discretion afforded to Natural England under S28C(1). The size of the extension is beyond the scope o f what was intended in S28C and the site should have been notified as a new site under S28. Summary of responses Natural England has sought Leading Counsel’s advice, as summarised in section 1.65 on the extent of its discretion when deciding whether or not to confirm the notification of a SSSI. Counsel has advised that if Natural England is of the opinion that an area of land is of special interest but does not confirm that, then the duty to notify the site will be revived. Likewise, where Natural England is of the opinion that an area that extends beyond an existing SSSI is of special interest in its own right, but does not exercise its discretion under section 28C, Natural England would be under a duty to notify the area that it considers special under section 28. Therefore, where Natural England is of the opinion that an area of land extending beyond an existing SSSI is of special interest, its discretion is limited to the mode of notification; notify the area as a new site, addition or enlargement.
Page 20 of 83 Section 28C does not provide a definition of the word ‘extends’ or place any limit on the extent of an enlargement. Natural England believes that it is entirely reasonable in the circumstances of this case and in view of its opinion on the special interest of the site, to exercise its discretion and exercise this power in this way. The site was not notified as a new SSSI under section 28 because the boundary includes the previously notified Cotswold Water Park SSSI. Notification under section 28 would therefore have resulted in overlapping designations. Socio economic issues are not material to the judgement being exercised when forming the opinion whether an area of land is of special scientific interest or not and if Natural England is of the opinion that it is, deciding to notify that fact. However, there are a number of general duties and a general purpose that must be considered and to which regard must be had, as part of the designation process. These are: Section 2 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) sets out Natural England’s general purpose: “(1) Natural England’s general purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.” Section 33 NERC Act states Natural England: “...must have regard to actual or possible ecological changes, and the desirability of contributing to sustainable development”. Section 40 NERC Act states that Natural England: “must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with a proper exercise of those functions to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. ....Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat.” Section 37 Countryside Act 1968: “...it shall be the duty of Natural England to have due regard to the needs to agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interest of rural areas”. Natural England has taken advice on the weight that should be given to these general provisions. Counsel has advised that effect can only be given to such general provisions if, and to the extent that, doing so is compatible with the specific legislation dealing with such areas. In this case having formed the opinion that an area is of special scientific interest, Natural England has a duty to notify that fact or exercise the limited discretion as to the means of notification described above. Those factors do not override that duty. Section 108 Deregulation Act 2015 (so-called ‘growth duty’): “A person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies must, in the exercise of the function, have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.” Notification in and of itself is not a regulatory function. It is the notification of an opinion which, having formed that opinion, Natural England are required to do. Regulatory functions may flow from notification e.g. with respect to the consenting regime where having regard to economic growth may form part of the deliberations on whether consent should be granted, but notification is not of itself a regulatory function.
1.8.9 Ground 9: Pre notification process Summary of concerns Natural England created an expectation of a full consultation before notification that Natural England failed to deliver. As a result, land identified as not suitable for inclusion has been notified and land managers were taken by surprise when they received their notification documents. In addition, because of the pandemic Natural England was not able to attend meetings with stakeholders.
Page 21 of 83 Summary of responses Section 1.6.1 provides a summary of officers’ pre-notification activity and engagement. Cotswold Water Park was added to Natural England’s designation programme published on gov.uk on 7 February 2018 following a period of evidence gathering which started with a breeding bird survey in spring 2015. Access for this and subsequent surveys was agreed with all relevant owner occupiers who were also made aware of the purpose of the surveys. There is no statutory requirement to engage with land owners prior to notification. However once an indicative boundary is confirmed Natural England writes to all owner occupiers, identified through a land registry search, to inform them about the proposed notification, confirm their ownership of land within the proposed boundary and provide an opportunity to discuss the notification and what the implications may be for them. In the case of Cotswold Water Park this letter was sent on 13 February 2020 to 435 owner occupiers. The letter included a draft proposed boundary for the enlarged site. Despite the impacts of the pandemic, Natural England staff remained accessible to owner occupiers by phone and email. Where either officers or owner occupiers have identified notified land which is not suitable for inclusion within the SSSI, the Board has been recommended to approve a boundary modification.
1.8.10 Ground 10: Notification process Summary of concerns Natural England have failed to comply with their legal obligations, as set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, because they did not notify every owner and occupier. Communication post notification has been patchy. Summary of responses Natural England has notified all owner occupiers identified through a land registry search. There were three land parcels with no land registry information. A site notice was placed at each of th ese locations. The notice includes a letter of notification, map identifying the land subject to the notification, citation, statement of Natural England’s Views about Management and list of operations requiring Natural England’s consent. The notices are the formal notification for these areas. Where owner occupiers have responded to the notification and informed officers of a change in ownership prior to notification the new owner occupiers have been notified. Due to an administrative error, Lord de Mauley was not notified at the same time as the majority of other owners and occupiers. Lord de Mauley was notified on 18 June 2021. Officers were in email correspondence with Lord de Mauley between 20 April 2021 and 27 May 2021. An objection dated 2 June 2021 was submitted by Burges Salmon on behalf of Lord De Mauley and others and he submitted his own formal objection to the notification on 4 June 2021. Officers have re-checked land registry data against notifications and confirmed this was the only notification omission of owner occupiers identified via the land registry. The legal notification documents cover any land owned by the person notified. Contact details (email and phone) were provided in the letter accompanying the notification with an open invitation to discuss any queries relating to the notification. There was an issue with the phone number quoted in the notification document. This was quickly identified and corrected on 8 January 2021. Natural England staff have been available via email and phone since notification. Officers have reviewed and responded to 54 objections from owners, occupiers and other interested parties, as well as more than 200 other representations. In the course of this, 31 site visits have been carried out to assess the need for boundary modifications.
1.8.11 Ground 11: Designation is unnecessary Summary of concerns Wildlife in the Cotswold Water Park is doing well and designation is unnecessary. Natural England has not considered alternative mechanisms to preserve and enhance the Cotswold Water Park. Designation is a blunt tool and should have been delayed until publication of Defra’s Green Paper
Page 22 of 83 which will set out how its protections framework might better deliver the UK’s wider domestic ambitions such as protecting 30% of UK land by 2030. Designation is also unnecessary as Natural England is a statutory consultee for planning. Summary of responses It is anticipated that protected sites will form the core of the Nature Recovery Network, which is a key element of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and will play a significant role in recovering nature. Natural England has specific powers and duties provided for by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and there is simply no basis for failing to exercise them in anticipation of the possibility of future policy and legislation. It has to act in accordance with the existing statutory framework. Many changes/developments that could be detrimental to the wildlife of the Cotswold Water Park would not need planning approval. SSSI notification allows Natural England, working with the Local Planning Authorities and owner occupiers, to influence these proposals. Without notification there is no statutory requirement for the Local Planning Authorities to consult Natural England.
1.8.12 Ground 12: Failure of the previous designation Summary of concerns Natural England was unable to manage the 1994 notified SSSI, which was in unfavourable declining condition. The enlarged site is assessed as being in favourable condition. How will Natural England ensure that the site is managed so that its condition does not deteriorate? Summary of responses The 1994 notification covered 10 lakes, notified for their ‘lake feature’. All units within this site were assessed to be in unfavourable declining condition due to high coverage with invasive weeds, resulting from poor water quality. The features for which the enlarged site is notified are not the same as those for which the previous site was notified. The notification for the enlarged site sets the baseline for condition assessments of those features for which the enlarged site has been notified. It is therefore not appropriate to compare condition assessments for the previous and enlarged site. Natural England recognises that the interest features of the SSSI have developed alongside the activities of landowners and local businesses. Current management on and around their lake(s) will be able to continue, provided it does not harm or damage the interest features. We do not anticipate any significant change in management will be required.
1.9 Objection from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), on behalf of the MoD and the United States Visiting Forces (USVF), who operate RAF Fairford, and the Royal Air Force (RAF), who operate RAF Brize Norton, submitted a ‘preliminary’ objection on 21 April 2021, and a formal objection on 7 June 2021. On 25 August 2021, DIO confirmed that one ground for objection had been withdrawn and submitted one further ground for objection which had not been raised by the 7 June 2021 deadline. RAF Fairford is within the Cotswold Water Park. In November 2020 the MoD purchased two lakes within the SSSI (Lakes 128 and 131). The airfield supports NATO operations, run by the USVF, in western Europe. The airfield is important because it has the longest military runway in the UK and is capable of handling aircraft no other airfield can. Most of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI is within the birdstrike safeguarding zone (13km radius of the base) of RAF Fairford. The eastern edge of the SSSI is within the birdstrike safeguarding zone of RAF Brize Norton.
1.9.1 Objection The MoD/USVF/RAF object to the notification on the following grounds:
Page 23 of 83 • air Safety and bird hazard management. • discretion afforded to Natural England under S28C(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This ground for objection was withdrawn on 25 August 2021 and the following further ground of objection was submitted. • the mode of notification is wrong. Cotswold Water Park SSSI should have been notified under section 28(1). • Scientific justification for the inclusion of all lakes within the boundary and qualification for green sandpiper, >20,000 waterbirds and lesser black-backed gulls. • the Impacts of the provisions within the Views About Management and List of Operations Requiring Natural England’s Consent and the regulatory burden will adversely and disproportionately affect the MOD’s ability to manage its land and control and manage birdstrike risk throughout the 13km birdstrike safeguarding zone. The points raised in support of the MoD/USVF/RAF’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 5.
1.9.2 Consideration of objection Officers responded to the MoD’s preliminary response to the notification by email on 28 May 2021 and to their formal objection by email on 27 July 2021. On 4 August 2021 officers including the Chief Executive met with the DIO, MoD and USVF at RAF Fairford to discuss how assenting and planning could operate, and how Natural England and the MoD can work together. Officers had a further call with the DIO and their consultants on 31 August 2021 to further discuss safeguarding and the outstanding objections. A further meeting to continue this is being held on 9 September 2021.
1.9.3 Scientific justification Safeguarding SSSI notification is based on the scientific case. In the case of Cotswold Water Park SSSI it recognises the nationally important numbers of waterbirds which are present within the site. Officers are very mindful of the need for RAF Fairford to maintain effective bird management. Natural England has granted a licence to undertake lethal bird control (Licence numbered 2021 - 52155-SPM-WLM) and granted assent to carry out bird scaring activities within Horcott Quarry and RAF Fairford. Officers have also confirmed that if the MoD wish to undertake bird scaring in other areas of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI, they can rely on the provisions of S28H(4)-(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In addition the MoD can undertake bird scaring in emergency situations without submitting a notice for SSSI assent providing they inform Natural England of the details as soon as practicable after the event (see S28P(2) and (4) and S28H(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The notification of the site as SSSI does not of itself, prevent the MoD from lawfully carrying out necessary safeguarding. Scientific grounds for objection The majority of the scientific objections raised by the MoD/USVF/RAF are addressed in section 1.8 (common grounds for objection) as shown in Table 5, below. Lakes 128 and 131 which are owned by the MoD both support interest features. Five year mean peak WeBS counts (2014/15 to 2018/19) confirm the presence of wintering waterbirds on Lake 131, in particular Wigeon, Teal, Coot and Black-headed gulls. Lake 131 also supports breeding Great crested grebe and species of breeding birds which contribute to the notified breeding bird assemblage. Lesser bearded stonewort Chara curta was recorded at Lake 131 in 2014. Lake 128 has been closed to access. There are therefore no recent WeBS counts for this lake. However, the presence of Bittern was recorded in summer up until 2018. A casework visit on 4 March 2021 noted 30+ tufted duck and a joint visit with DIO on 18 May 2021 recorded breeding reed warblers and reed bunting.
Page 24 of 83 1.9.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from the MoD/USVF/RAF, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 5 Unresolved objections from the MoD/USVF/RAF Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Air safety - the enlargement of the SSSI and its See section 1.9.3 which details the licence to aims and objectives as stated in the “Views undertake lethal bird control, assent to carry about Management” are in direct conflict with out bird scaring activities within Horcott Quarry the safeguarding processes of the “Town and and RAF Fairford. This section also outlines Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, provisions to undertake bird scaring in other Technical Sites and Military Explosives areas of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI. The Storage Areas) Direction 2002”. notification of the site as SSSI does not of itself, prevent the MoD from lawfully carrying out necessary safeguarding. The re-designation of the SSSI and the See section 1.9.3 which outlines provisions to resulting pressure and duties on landowners undertake bird scaring in the Cotswold Water and occupiers and public bodies to protect and Park SSSI. The notification of the site as SSSI enhance bird populations within the birdstrike does not of itself, prevent the MoD from safeguarding zones directly conflicts with what lawfully carrying out necessary safeguarding. the MoD needs to achieve to minimise birdstrike risk. The MoD is concerned about how Natural See section 1.8.6 which details officers’ advice England will assess applications for licences regarding Section 106 agreements. Officers and consents relating to birdstrike hazard have provided advice to the MoD on how to management. The MoD’s position is that continue with these activities within the birdstrike hazard management should be existing legislative framework. paramount and should be approved even if it affects favourable condition. The MoD is concerned that the aims of the See section 1.9.3 which outlines provisions to SSSI to conserve and enhance bird undertake bird scaring in the Cotswold Water populations and minimise disturbance within Park SSSI. The notification of the site as SSSI the birdstrike safeguarding zones conflicts with does not of itself, prevent the MoD from what the MoD needs to achieve to minimise lawfully carrying out necessary safeguarding. birdstrike risk. The MoD is concerned with how previously The impact of future developments which agreed deterrent mitigation and other periodic include habitat creation is not something which management measures undertaken in officers can consider within the designation conjunction with landowners in the locality, to process. Assessment of impacts on air safety manage the birdstrike risk beyond the is a matter for the local planning authority. The aerodrome, will be affected by the designation boundary of the SSSI is tightly drawn to and how future developments featuring new include the lakes and areas of marginal and wetland habitat creation can be mitigated. surrounding vegetation which support the bird features. Within the site there is therefore very limited scope for the creation of additional wetland habitat, with the exception of the restoration of active quarries which have a planning obligation for restoration to a habitat which will support bird interests. There is no clear, swift or accountable process See section 1.9.3. outlines provisions to offered that will allow for the reactive bird undertake bird scaring in the Cotswold Water management necessary in response to an Park SSSI. The notification of the site as SSSI emerging flight safety issue within the RAF does not of itself, prevent the MoD from Fairford 13km safeguarding zone. lawfully carrying out necessary safeguarding.
Page 25 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection The notification has included gravel sites For current workings officers have taken where pre-existing planning conditions and account of the presence of supporting agreements have placed requirements for Bird habitat/relevant bird features and the approved Hazard Management Plans and active controls restoration plan when determining the SSSI to be implemented. Following the principle for boundary. Where a gravel working has a the non-inclusion of the gravel workings at planning obligation for restoration to habitat Manor Farm, Whelford these other sites should which will continue to support the special be excluded from the confirmation of the SSSI. interest features the relevant areas within the restoration plan have been included within the boundary. Officers are aware of a change to the restoration plan for some areas at Dryleaze Farm. A site visit has been carried out and officers have recommended boundary changes to the Board for this part of the SSSI. The mode of notification is wrong. The This ground for objection was received on 25 extended SSSI is notified principally for the August 2021 and officers have yet to formally wintering waterbirds, with other bird features respond. The situation at the Cotswold Water and charophytes as subsidiaries. On the basis Park is a good fit with the provisions of section that the boundary has been determined, the 28C. A notification under section 28(1) would Cotswold Water Park SSSI should have been inevitably result in overlapping SSSIs, which notified under section 28(1) and not 28C. may lead to confusion. There has been no consideration of whether See section 1.8.1 which details how officers any individual lakes or groups of lakes are of determined that the lakes within the SSSI special interest, significantly contribute to function as a single ecological unit and special special interest, or function to protect the interest has been determined. standard of special interest such that loss of or damage would detract significantly from the value of the whole. The SSSI includes lakes that do not have any See section 1.8.1. All lakes within the SSSI data to show their special interest and/ or boundary have data which demonstrates they which do not show regular use of waterbirds in support at least one of the interest features. accordance with the published criteria. Officers have recommended boundary changes to the Board to exclude lakes where no data is available to support inclusion within the boundary. A high proportion (41%) of the lakes have a See sections 1.8.1 and 1.8.3. which: peak monthly mean of <100 waterbirds and • detail how officers determined that the would not be considered to support special lakes within the SSSI function as a single interest either individually or in functional or ecological unit and special interest has spatial groups. The very large number of lakes been determined and gives a misleading impression of the • clarifies the selection guidelines for green importance for green sandpiper, and sandpiper. conceivably for other features. Regular occurrence of >20,000 waterbirds on See section 1.8.2. which details the data used the Cotswold Water Park SSSI has not been to determine the presence of 37,131 proven according to the Guidelines and waterbirds within the SSSI and confirms that therefore the wintering waterbird assemblage the site regularly supports an assemblage of does not qualify as a feature of special interest. over 20,000 waterbirds. There is a lack of evidence that lesser black- See section 1.8.3. which details the data used backed gulls regularly occur at nationally to determine the presence of a qualifying important levels; and an inappropriately low number of lesser black-backed gulls (1.1%) qualification threshold for national significance over a prolonged period. Section 1.8.3 also has been used for green sandpiper. clarifies the selection of green sandpiper.
Page 26 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Individual inclusion of lakes 128 and 131 in the See section 1.8.1 which details how officers re-designation does not comply with determined that the lakes within the SSSI Guidelines, the inclusion of the four areas function as a single ecological unit and special Eysey Manor, Horcott, Roundhouse Farm and interest has been determined. the Coln Lakes (all east of the A419), Section 1.9.3 details the presence of interest individually and collectively, do not comply with features on Lakes 128 and 131. the JNCC Guidelines Part 1, para 8.1 as loss would not significantly affect the re-designation of the site. Most of the lakes in the four groups east of the See section 1.8.4 which details that there is no A419 have no evidence of supporting the expectation that the qualifying charophyte important charophyte species. No lake or species will be present in every part of the group of lakes in the four areas would meet the SSSI. It also details the potential for natural JNCC Guidelines Part 1 para 8.1 whereby loss colonisation, opportunities for rotational or damage would significantly detract from the management and greater resilience within the value of the whole. SSSI. The lakes in the four groups east of the A419 Breeding bird surveys (2015, 2018 and 2019) make a minimal contribution to the breeding recorded 18 species which are part of the bird qualification of the SSSI and do not meet notified breeding bird assemblage as the JNCC Guidelines Part 1 para 8.1 whereby confirmed or probably breeding on the lakes loss or damage would significantly detract from around RAF Fairford. Following restoration, the value of the whole. Eysey Manor and Roundhouse Farm would be expected to provide additional supporting habitat for breeding birds. The provisions of the views about See section 1.8.5 which details officers’ management and list of operations requiring consideration of the operations requiring Natural England’s consent and the regulatory Natural England’s consent and process put in burden will adversely and disproportionately place to reduce the administrative burden for affect MOD’s ability to manage its land and its owner occupiers, Section 1.8.6 details officers ability to control and manage birdstrike risk advice to the MoD on how to continue bird throughout the 13km birdstrike safeguarding hazard management within the existing zone. legislative framework.
1.10 Objection from Burges Salmon on behalf of Lord de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd and Hills Group Ltd Simon Tilling of Burges Salmon LLP submitted an objection on behalf of Lord de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd and Hills Group Ltd on 2 June 2021. Lord de Mauley, Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd and Hills Group Ltd have also raised specific additional objections relating to land in their ownership. These have been addressed separately. Lord de Mauley confirmed in a telephone call on 3 September that he and his brother (George Ponsonby) are withdrawing from the Burges Salmon objection and that he will confirm this in writing during week commencing 6 September 2021.
1.10.1 Objection Lord de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd and Hills Group Ltd object to the notification on the following grounds: • Failures of consultation process prior to notification. • The impact of the notification. • Failures in the notification process. • Science – quality and accuracy of data used to support notification. Regular use not demonstrated. Insufficient evidence provided for the inclusion of all lakes functioning as a single ecological unit.
Page 27 of 83 • Failure of the previous (1994) notification to achieve its objectives. • Failure to give proper consideration to the area within the SSSI. • Inappropriateness of the List of Operations Requiring Natural England’s Consent. • Alternative options to achieve enhancement of the Cotswold Water Park. • Natural England’s exercise of discretion. • The Management Statement. The points raised in support of Burges Salmon’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 6.
1.10.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Burges Salmon, Lord de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Moreton Cullimore and Peter Andrew (Hills Group Ltd) and responded to the concerns raised in the objection.
1.10.3 Scientific justification The scientific objections raised by Burges Salmon are addressed in Table 6 below.
1.10.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Burges Salmon on behalf of Lord de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd and Hills Group Ltd the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 6 Unresolved objections from Burges Salmon Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Failures of consultation process prior to See section 1.8.9. Annex 2 of the response to notification. Natural England created an Burges Salmon details all engagement with expectation of a full consultation before Lord de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Moreton notification that Natural England then failed to C. Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd and Hills Group Ltd deliver. prior to notification. The impact of the notification. Failure to See sections 1.8.9 and 1.8.5. which engage in a meaningful manner prior to summarise pre-notification engagement and notification meant that land managers were processes put in place to prepare for the taken by surprise when they received their ORNECs. Contact details were provided in the notification documents. notification papers with an open invitation to discuss any queries relating to the notification. Failures in the notification process. See section 1.8.10. ➢ Lord de Mauley did not receive any notification documents despite making his Annex 3 of the response to Burges Salmon ownership clear to Natural England. (see section 5) details engagement with Lord ➢ Moreton Cullimore did not receive de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Moreton C. notification in respect to some of his land Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd and Hills Group Ltd until March 2021. since notification. ➢ Communication post notification was patchy. ➢ Natural England have failed to comply with their legal obligations, as set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 because they did not notify every owner and occupier.
Page 28 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Too much reliance has been placed on data The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) is a from the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) which is partnership jointly funded by the British Trust carried out by volunteers. The objectors for Ornithology, Royal Society for the question whether the data is sufficiently robust Protection of Birds and Joint Nature and reliable to underpin notification. Natural Conservation Committee. It is the UK national England should attach appropriate weight to non-breeding waterbird monitoring scheme, the data to reflect its limitations. well respected and used to inform policy, designation and major development proposals. Natural England considers WeBS data to be robust and reliable to underpin notification. Accuracy of the gull count data for 2017/18. See section 1.8.2. Regular use not demonstrated for gulls. See sections 1.8.2 and 1.8.3. WeBS data shows a decline in numbers from See sections 1.8.2. and 1.8.7. 2014/15 to 2018/19. 2019/20 data is now available and should be used to provide a revised 5-year mean. Some of the species for which the site has been notified require early stage successional habitat which will necessitate management. There is no clear funding mechanism for this management and as a result designation could result in a deterioration of biodiversity value. UK population thresholds for national The Guidelines, Chapter 17, sections 3.2 and importance are out of date. 3.3, set out the selection criteria for aggregations of breeding and non-breeding birds. The thresholds for national importance are calculated from agreed national population estimates published by the Avian Population Estimates Panel (APEP)7. APEP is a collaboration between the UK statutory conservation agencies and relevant non- governmental organisations. The role of APEP is to collate the best estimates of breeding and non-breeding bird population size and present a consensus view on the most appropriate estimates for relevant conservation applications, such as defining thresholds for statutory site designations. Little ringed plover and little egret nesting See section 1.8.1. Natural England agrees that habitat is focused on discrete areas and little ringed plover and little egret nesting doesn’t justify the inclusion of all lakes. habitat is focused on discrete areas. These species are, however, likely to range widely to feed. For the breeding bird assemblages, no spatial See section 1.8.1. The breeding bird survey assessment has been undertaken to justify the covered 146 of the lakes within the boundary inclusion of all lakes for these features. and was supplemented by local record centre data, Rare Breeding Bird Panel data and published reports. There is a discrepancy between the condition See section 1.8.12. assessments for the previously notified site and the enlarged site. More data is required to justify the current condition assessment.
7 Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds Volume 113, 69-104 (Woodward, I., Aebischer, N., Burnell, D., Eaton, M., Frost, T., Hall, C., Stroud, D. and Noble, D), 2020.
Page 29 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Nitellopsis obtusa has not been confirmed as See section 1.8.4. Charophyte records from extant since 2013 and there is insufficient 2012 onwards are considered to be recent. recent data to justify its selection. Reports summarising the status and See section 1.8.4. Although the four distribution of aquatic plants do not cover all charophyte species detailed in the supporting lakes. A lake by lake assessment is required to information form part of the reasons for identify the lakes which should be included for notification there is no expectation that they their plant assemblages/species. occur in every part of the SSSI. Many of the operations listed in the ORNEC’s Annex 3, p16 of the notification document are already taking place and the notified states: features are considered to be in favourable “The operations listed below may damage the condition. They cannot therefore be considered features of interest of Cotswold Water Park to be potentially damaging. SSSI. Before any of these operations are undertaken you must consult Natural England and may require consent. It is usually possible to carry out some of these operations in certain ways, or at specific times of year, or on certain parts of the SSSI, without damaging the features of interest”. Insufficient evidence provided for the inclusion See section 1.8.1. of all lakes functioning as a single ecological unit. A lake by lake review should be carried out to justify each lake’s inclusion and those lakes required to preserve the integrity of the site. Failure of the previous (1994) notification to See section 1.8.12. achieve its objectives. Natural England must address why the enlarged SSSI will succeed when the condition of features from the previous designation was unfavourable declining. Failure to give proper consideration to the area See section 1.8.1. within the SSSI. Natural England has not followed the JNCC guidelines with regard to determination of the SSSI boundary. Inappropriateness of the List of Operations See section 1.8.5. Section 5 of the supporting Requiring Natural England’s Consent. It is not information details how Natural England has clear if any thought has been given to the selected the ORNEC’s which apply to this site appropriateness of the use of a generic list of and at least one reason for the inclusion of operations, for a site which is manmade, under each of the operations. very active management and owned by multiple landowners operating a diverse range of economic activities. The list is extensive in scope and highly restrictive. Alternative options to achieve enhancement of See sections 1.8.7 and 1.8.11. the Cotswold Water Park. Natural England has not considered alternative mechanisms to preserve and enhance the Park. Notification will exclude access to future funding mechanisms such as Biodiversity Net Gain, the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund and the new Environmental Land Management scheme.
Page 30 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Natural England’s exercise of discretion. See section 1.8.8. ➢ The power for Natural England to enlarge a SSSI is discretionary. ➢ Under section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 Natural England has a duty (not a power) to consider the social and economic interests of rural areas. Para 3.3. in the notification is therefore incorrect. ➢ Under the Deregulation Act 2015 Natural England must have regard to the “growth duty” which applies whenever there is discretion. ➢ Natural England must address how it considers that extending the SSSI is necessary and proportionate regulatory action when the previous SSSI was in unfavourable declining condition. ➢ Natural England need to explain how designation will align with its statutory purpose to secure the provision and improvement of facilities for the …enjoyment of the natural environment; promoting access to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging open-air recreation. ➢ Natural England has a duty to ensure that any action is proportionate and should demonstrate that future management of the site and administration of the notification is workable. The Management Statement. The position with See section 1.8.5. The position with regard to regard to the need to obtain consent for consent is clearly set out in the notification existing activities is unclear and the process for document. obtaining consent is inflexible and inappropriate for an intensively managed site.
1.11 Objection from Hills Group Ltd In addition to the objection from Burges Salmon, Peter Andrew, Group Director, Hills Group Ltd set out his objections in five further submissions, the first on 19 January and the remainder on 7 June 2021. This section details areas of objection which are not covered within the Burges Salmon objection and response at section 1.10.
1.11.1 Objection Hills Group objects to the notification on the following grounds: • The inclusion of silt and clean water lagoons (Lakes 71 and 67) at Cerney Wick Quarry. • The inclusion of silt lagoons (Lakes 79 and 79a) and surrounding areas at Shorncote Quarry. • The inclusion of an area at Dryleaze Quarry (Lakes 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d and 202e). • The inclusion of the area covered by Title numbers WT444614 and WT444615 (Lake 87) at Cotswold Community Quarry. • There has been no mention or assessment of the increasing number of Bird Hazard Management Plans (BHMPs) being put in place across the CWP.
Page 31 of 83 • The confirmation process allows for no third party, neutral intervention or appeal route. • How do Board Members have an adequate opportunity to ask for and process documentation to ensure the correct balance is achieved in their decision making? • The confirmation timeframe of nine months is exceptionally limited given the scale of notification and degree of concern. • It is not clear if the supporting information forms any legal part of the designation process. • Active quarries and their associated processing, and production areas are included within the boundary. • A Habs Regs assessment of the impacts of SSSI designation on North Meadow SAC should have been carried out. • A Management Plan for the SSSI detailing how the site will be kept at its current level of interest and not allowed to decline where landowners no longer undertake the works that they do now, is required. The points raised in support of Hills Group Ltd’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 7.
1.11.2 Consideration of objection A site visit was requested to assess the need for boundary modifications but a convenient date for Hills Group Ltd could not be agreed. Officers wrote to Peter Andrew by email on 23 August 2021 in response to the objection and to confirm a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that areas at Cerney Wick Quarry and Shorncote Quarry which do not support the interest features be removed from the SSSI boundary. Having received a detailed restoration plan for Shorncote Quarry officers wrote to Peter Andrew on 31 August 2021 with a revised boundary.
1.11.3 Scientific justification Lakes 67 and 71 are small lakes, currently within the working quarry area. WeBS counts record the presence of birds from the non-breeding assemblage, although there are no records for the last three years. Small numbers of breeding birds are present, including tufted duck and little grebe. Modifications are proposed to the SSSI boundary around these lakes to take account of the approved restoration plan. Lakes 79/79a are also in a working quarry. WeBS counts record the presence of birds from the non-breeding assemblage up to 2017-18, after which there are no counts. Breeding bird data from the breeding bird survey records the assemblage is well represented at Lake 79, including little ringed plover. Chara curta was recorded in Lake 79 in 2018. Modifications are proposed to the SSSI boundary around these lakes to take account of the approved restoration plan. Lake 87 - WeBS counts record the presence of birds from the non-breeding assemblage, although there have been no counts since 2017-18. Breeding bird survey data records a number of species from the breeding assemblage. Chara curta was recorded in this lake in 2018. This is a completed lake. The area is crossed by a conveyor taking material from an extraction site to the south, but this has only a minor effect on the SSSI and no boundary modifications are proposed. Lakes 202a-e are owned by Mr B Knight who also submitted an objection. See section 1.16. Mr Andrew also mentions Lake 88. This is a site owned by Wiltshire Council, where extraction (by Hills Group Ltd) has finished. Wiltshire Council have not registered an objection to the inclusion of this lake within the SSSI.
1.11.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Hills Group Ltd the Board is recommendation to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude land around lakes 67, 71, 79 and 79a, a total area of 13.22 ha.
Page 32 of 83 Table 7 Unresolved objections from Hills Group Ltd Grounds for objection Consideration of objection The inclusion of silt and clean water lagoons Modifications are proposed to the boundaries (Lakes 71 and 67) at Cerney Wick Quarry. as of these lakes to take account of the approved these lagoons are part of a working quarry restoration plan. which will be operational for a further 10 years and which make an insignificant contribution to the notified features of the site. The inclusion of silt lagoons (Lakes 79 and Modifications are proposed to the boundaries 79a) and surrounding areas at Shorncote of these lakes to take account of the approved Quarry as the land notified includes an inert restoration plan. recycling facility with planning permission until December 2027. Restoration works, including drainage of waterbodies will cause significant disturbances and future changes to the restoration plan may result in the imposition of a bird hazard management plan. The area highlighted in the plan attached to your objection does not currently and will not in the medium term make a significant contribution to the notified features of the site. The inclusion of an area at Dryleaze Quarry A site visit took place with Mr B Knight on 9 (Lakes 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d and 202e) as August 2021 at which proposed changes to the the quarry will be operational for another 7.5 boundary were agreed and which will be put to years, the waterbodies present have been the Board for approval. designed to be unattractive to birds and a bird hazard management plan is in place. As a result, this area currently and will not in the future make a significant contribution to the notified features of the site. The inclusion of the area covered by Title Lake 87 holds birds and stoneworts that form numbers WT444614 and WT444615 (Lake 87) part of the interest feature of the SSSI. The at Cotswold Community Quarry as it is SSSI designation will not affect Hills Group’s currently being worked, will not be restored for ability to extract mineral from the quarry to the some time, does not currently and will not in south, including the conveyor and access the medium term make a significant roads that cross the Lake 87 area. contribution to the notified features of the site. There has been no mention or assessment of See section 1.8.6. Natural England is in close the increasing number of Bird Hazard discussions with the MoD regarding Bird Management Plans (BHMPs) being put in Hazard Management Plans. The boundary of place across the CWP as a result of the the SSSI recognises the high levels of changing position with the MoD and their disturbance in certain places and at certain concerns about risk to aircraft using RAF times. Fairford. Some of the areas identified in the proposed designations are already subject to BHMP, how will NE deal with that conflict, will landowners be persecuted by NE for carrying out the work under the BHMP that they are legally bound to do?
Page 33 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection The confirmation process allows for no third The decision on whether to confirm or not is party, neutral intervention or Appeal route and made by the Board of Natural England in is therefore inherently not robust and breaches accordance with provisions of the Wildlife and the landowners and other stakeholders’ rights Countryside Act. The Board will give careful to enjoyment of their land. consideration to the question of whether the site is of special scientific interest or not. That will include considering any objections that remain unresolved. Objectors have the opportunity to make representations at that meeting. How do Board Members have an adequate Board members will receive full details of all opportunity to ask for and process any of the objections, including all correspondence prior documentation that has not been made to the Board meeting. This ensures they have available but which they may feel is important adequate time to be familiar with all the details to ensure the correct balance is achieved in prior to the Board Meeting. their decision making. The only fixed timeframe that seems to have The time frame of 9 months from notification been given is 9 months from the notification to within which Natural England may withdraw or a final decision being made. In current times confirm the notification is provided for by that is exceptionally limited, but even more so statute and cannot be extended. As detailed when the scale of what is being proposed and previously Natural England have been the degree of concern is weighed into the engaging with owners and occupiers since balance. 2018. It is not clear if the supporting information The supporting information is exactly that, it is forms any legal part of the designation process the evidence to support the designation. It as it is presented separately, not as one of the seeks to provide information that explains the annexes of the Notification. basis on which Natural England has reached its opinion that the site is of special scientific interest, including pointing to the evidence that it has relied upon. The designation maps include a number of In addition to the existing lakes within the active quarries and their associated Cotswold Water Park SSSI a number of processing, and production areas. currently active quarries are included within the site boundary. As stated in the supporting information document this is because they currently support interest features and have a planning obligation to be restored to habitat which will continue to support the notified features of the site. A Habs Regs assessment of the impacts of In notifying a SSSI, NE is not undertaking or SSSI designation on North Meadow SAC authorising a plan or project. It is notifying of should have been carried out. the opinion that it has reached i.e. that the site is of special scientific interest. A Habs Regs assessment is not required for the notification of that opinion. A Management Plan for the SSSI detailing how Natural England expect current activity to the site will be kept at its current level of continue and landowners to continue to carry interest and not allowed to decline where out the works they currently do. The principles landowners no longer undertake the works that that guide good management for each of the they do now was requested. special features at Cotswold Water Park SSSI are specified in the Views About Management.
1.12 Objection from Moreton Cullimore of Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd In addition to the objection from Burges Salmon, Moreton Cullimore, Managing Director, Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd, submitted a further objection on 3 June 2021. This section details areas of
Page 34 of 83 objection which are not covered within the Burges Salmon objection and response at section 1.10.
1.12.1 Objection Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd objects the notification on the following grounds: • Kent End Farm – Tenure map WT308322 (Lakes 200, 76, 66, 69). Inclusion of agricultural/arable land and private garden. • Roundhouse Farm – Tenure Map WT182945 (Lakes 306a-e). The site is an active working quarry subject to a pending application for a revised restoration scheme. As such the habitat is subject to change. • Lake 36 – Tenure Map GR368464. This lake is used for fishing. Request to reduce the boundary at the northern edge of the lake. • Manor Farm and Manor Farm South – Tenure Map WT306265 (Lakes 28, 28a, 29, 30, 35, 38, 64 north, 70, 92). Inclusion of grassland. Lakes are either being worked, supporting works or used for wildfowling, fishing and/or water sports. • Dairy Farm – Tenure Map WT310219 (39, 40, 64 south). Designation should be removed while still an active quarry. • Three Bridges – Tenure Map WT112644 (94). 93 is in WT98392, which includes coachyard but not 94. Inclusion of agricultural land. • Inclusion of inappropriate areas of land. • Inclusion of agricultural land and impact on day to day management of this land. The points raised in support of Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 8.
1.12.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited with Mr Cullimore on 9 August 2021. Officers wrote to Mr Cullimore by email on 26 August 2021 to respond to his objection and confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the SSSI boundary be modified, as set out below. Mr Cullimore replied on 27 August 2021 with an amended plan for lake 200, which in his view was closer to the restoration plan boundary. Af ter careful consideration using available data, officers wrote to Mr Cullimore by email on 31 August with an amended boundary modification.
1.12.3 Scientific justification Kent End Farm Lakes 66, 69 and 76 – WeBS counts for these lakes record the presence of birds from the non- breeding bird assemblage. At lake 66 numbers are inflated by mallard released for shooting, but other species are also present. Large numbers of wigeon and tufted duck are recorded at Lake 69. Breeding great crested grebe is recorded on all three lakes. Lake 200 is being developed as an electric cable-ski centre. WeBS counts record the presence a range of birds from the non-breeding bird assemblage although numbers for mallard are again inflated by released birds. Breeding bird survey data records good breeding bird representation including common tern and little ringed plover alongside a range of other species. During the site visit it was clear that areas of agricultural grassland north of Lake 200 and mown amenity grassland around lakes 66 and 69 had been included within the boundary. These areas do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. Roundhouse Farm WeBS counts for these lakes record the presence of birds from the non-breeding bird assemblage although there are no counts for lake 306e after 2016/17. Roundhouse Farm was not visited on 9 August 2021. No boundary amendment is proposed. The restoration carried out has not followed
Page 35 of 83 the restoration plan approved by Wiltshire Council. Natural England has been consulted on a retrospective application to amend the restoration plan to one that reflects the current position on the ground. Natural England has noted to the Council that the revised plan (the current position) is better for the interest features of the SSSI than the original and that work to change the restoration to the original plan would be damaging to the interest features. Lake 36 This is a small lake with small numbers of wintering birds. Lake 36 was not visited on 9 August 2021. The scrub area to the west is very important for breeding birds, including nightingales, which are recorded from Lake 43 which is in separate ownership. No boundary changes are proposed. The Manor Farm and Manor Farm South All lakes support birds from the non-breeding assemblage, in variable numbers. At lakes 28, 28a and 92 numbers of mallard are inflated by released birds, but all have other species present. Breeding birds from the assemblage were present throughout, with great crested grebes on most lakes and tufted ducks, reed warblers and reed buntings widespread. Chara curta was recorded in lakes 29 and 30 in 2019. No change to the boundary is proposed. Dairy Farm The Dairy Farm lakes are still being restored. The most recent WeBS data is for 2018/19, when few birds were recorded. From local record centre data Lake 39 supports breeding kingfisher and Lake 40 a strong population of reed warblers. Further restoration on Lake 40 as part of the restoration plan was discussed as part of the site visit. The ability to carry out that work is unaffected by the SSSI. No change to the boundary is proposed. Three Bridges Lake 93 at Three Bridges has been greatly reduced in area. WeBS counts are dominated by released mallard, but a range of other species are also present. A good population of reed warblers is present. During the site visit it was clear that areas of agricultural grassland had been included within the boundary. These areas do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.12.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Ltd, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude areas at Lake 200 and Lake 93 returned to agriculture and amenity grassland surrounding lakes 66 and 69, a total area of 32.86 ha.
Table 8 Unresolved objections from Moreton C Cullimore Gravels Ltd Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Kent End Farm - Tenure map WT308322 See section 1.12.3. (Lakes 200, 76, 66, 69). Inclusion of agricultural/arable land and private garden. Roundhouse Farm – Tenure Map WT182945 See section 1.12.3. (Lakes 305a-e). The site is an active working quarry subject to a pending application for a revised restoration scheme. As such the habitat is subject to change. Lake 36 – Tenure Map GR368464. This lake is See section 1.12.3. used for fishing. Request to reduce the boundary at the northern edge of the lake.
Page 36 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Manor Farm and Manor Farm South – See section 1.12.3. Tenure Map WT306265 (Lakes 28, 28a, 29, 30, 35, 38, 64 north, 70, 92). Inclusion of grassland. Lakes are either being worked, supporting works or used for wildfowling, fishing and/or water sports. Dairy Farm – Tenure Map WT310219 (39, 40, See section 1.12.3. 64 south). Designation should be removed while still an active quarry. Three Bridges – Tenure Map WT112644 (94). See section 1.12.3. 93 is in WT98392, which includes coachyard but not 94. Inclusion of agricultural land. Inclusion of inappropriate areas of land. Natural England recognises that some areas included in the boundary on the 7th January 2021 do not support the interest features of the SSSI. We have worked with owner occupiers to address this and are recommending to the Board that areas such as those listed above are removed from the notification. Inclusion of agricultural land and impact on day If land does not support the interest features of to day management of this land. the SSSI Natural England has recommended to the Board that it is removed from the boundary. Current management will continue. Natural England recognises that the need to apply for consent for the list of activities within the ORNECs is a new and unfamiliar requirement for many of the owner occupiers within Cotswold Water Park SSSI. Natural England has put in place processes to ensure officers are able to assess notices as quickly as possible and, where appropriate, grant consent for a five year period in order to reduce the administrative burden for owner occupiers and facilitate routine management.
1.13 Objection from Cotswold Waters Limited (Lakes 103, 103a and 104) Corylus Planning & Environmental Ltd submitted an objection on behalf of Cotswold Waters Limited (lakes 103, 103a, 104) on 3 June 2021. Further information was provided by Corylus Planning & Environmental Ltd on 30 August 2021.
1.13.1 Objection Cotswold Waters Ltd objects to the notification on the following grounds: • The SSSI boundary fails to take account of extant planning permissions. Cotswold Waters Ltd request that areas which have planning permission for development and which once completed will not support the interest features, are removed from the SSSI boundary. • The SSSI boundary does not take account of on-going uses and threatens to impose significant restrictions on the operation and management of long-established leisure use of lakes, parts of which are currently undergoing approved redevelopment. The points raised in support of Cotswold Waters Ltd’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 9.
1.13.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 4 March 2021. A further visit was carried out on 15 July 2021 with Cotswold
Page 37 of 83 District Council, Coln Residential and Corylus Planning & Environmental Ltd. Officers wrote to Adam Thomas, Corylus Planning & Environmental Ltd on 26 August 2021 in response to the objection.
1.13.3 Scientific justification WeBS data for Lake 104 confirms the presence of birds from the non-breeding bird assemblage including mute swan, gadwall, wigeon, pochard, mallard, tufted duck and coot. The breeding bird survey recorded great crested grebe, tufted duck, coot, Cetti’s warbler, reed bunting, reed warbler, long-tailed tit and yellowhammer. Taking lakes 103a and 103 together, small numbers across a range of species from the non- breeding bird assemblage are present. Breeding great crested grebe, coot and bullfinch are recorded.
1.13.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Cotswold Waters Limited, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 9 Unresolved objections from Cotswold Waters Ltd Grounds for objection Consideration of objection The SSSI boundary fails to take account of The representation requests the removal of extant planning permissions. Cotswold Waters Lakes 103/103a and land adjacent to Lake Ltd request that areas which have planning 104. the north-east of lake 104. Planning permission for development and which once permission for development of holiday completed will not support the interest features accommodation and related tourist activities of the site, are removed from the SSSI was granted in 2010, and a Certificate of boundary. Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development was issued in 2016. Although land north of Lake 104 had been cleared for archaeological investigation, no building works had started by the date of the last site visit on 15 July 2021. It is not appropriate to exclude the areas requested for the following reasons: a) Lakes 103, 103a and 104 support features for which the site is notified. b) Planning permission is a permission and not an obligation. As such its implementation is not guaranteed and until implemented the lakes will continue to support features for which the site is notified. The SSSI boundary does not take account of Natural England’s consent is not required for on-going uses and threatens to impose any activities authorised by a planning significant restrictions on the operation and permission (section 28P(4) of the Wildlife and management of long-established leisure use of Countryside Act 1981). lakes, parts of which are currently undergoing approved redevelopment.
1.14 Objection from Alvin Lindley (Lake 82) Gareth Pinwell of Ashfords LLP submitted an objection on behalf of Mr Alvin Lindley on 4 June 2021 and a further objection relating to Lake 82 on 7 June 2021.
1.14.1 Objection Mr Lindley objects to the notification on the following grounds: • Power to make the notification.
Page 38 of 83 • Exercise of discretion pursuant to Section 28C. • Lack of appropriate consultation leading to notification. • Issues with the notification process. • Scientific approach to proposed notification. • Inclusion of Lake 82 within the SSSI. The points raised in support of Mr Lindley’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 10.
1.14.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 11 August and viewed from public footpaths on 18 August 2021. Officers wrote to Gareth Pinwell of Ashfords LLP by email on 26 August 2021 and responded to the points raised in Mr Lindley’s objection.
1.14.3 Scientific justification WeBS counts for Lake 82 record the presence of birds from the non-breeding bird assemblage. Breeding grasshopper warbler, great crested grebe, garden warbler, lesser whitethroat and long- tailed tit have been recorded. Chara curta, was recorded at Lake 82 in 2014. Surveys were carried out to support an environmental impact assessment included within Mr Lindley’s objection. These confirmed: • the continued presence of lesser bearded stonewort Chara curta; • the presence of breeding great crested grebe, mute swan and gadwall. Additional species were recorded and considered to be breeding elsewhere but utilising Lake 82 for foraging ; and • 20 species of waterbirds, including pochard, greylag goose, mute swan, gadwall, wigeon, mallard, great crested grebe, coot, tufted duck, goldeneye, snipe, black-headed gull, and lesser black-backed gull. High numbers (max count 150 birds) of wigeon were recorded on the lake during each survey. On 18 August 2021 the site was viewed from public footpaths along and across the site. Part of the grass field to the south-east of the lake has been fenced off. This area does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.14.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr Lindley the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude an area of grassland, a total area of 6.4 ha.
Table 10 Unresolved objections from Alvin Lindley Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Power to make the notification - due to the size See section 1.8.8. of the extension, the site should not be notified under Section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 but should be notified under Section 28.
Page 39 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Exercise of discretion pursuant to Section 28C. See section 1.8.8. • In exercising its discretion pursuant to Section 28C of the Act Natural England has a duty to consider the social and economic interests of rural areas affected by the notification. Natural England should address how it considers extending the SSSI to be necessary and proportionate regulatory action given that the previously notified site is in unfavourable declining condition. • Concerns raised regarding the need to obtain consent for the Operations Requiring Natural England’s Consent (ORNECs). • It is incumbent on Natural England to consider alternative options to achieve an enhancement of the Cotswold Water Park. Lack of appropriate consultation leading to See sections 1.8.5 and 1.8.9. notification. Natural England is on record as having raised a legitimate expectation of Lake 82 was surveyed for breeding birds in landowners that it will carry out a full 2018. consultation in respect of the process before notification, which it did not meet. As a result, land identified as not suitable for inclusion within the boundary has been notified and owner occupiers were unaware of the breadth of the ORNECs. In addition, because of the pandemic Natural England was not able to attend meetings with stakeholders. Issues with the notification process. The See section 1.8.10. notification process has been partial and Natural England has failed to consult every owner occupier, in breach of Section 28C(2) of the Act.
Page 40 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection In its scientific approach Natural England has See sections 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3 and 1.8.4. not applied the rigor that a reasonable and The Wetland Bird Survey is a partnership robust organisation would undertake. Data is jointly funded by the British Trust for out of date, sweeping assumptions have been Ornithology, Royal Society for the Protection of made and gaps in ecological advice have not Birds and Joint Nature Conservation been filled. In particular: Committee. It is the UK national non-breeding • In relation to non-breeding birds the data waterbird monitoring scheme, well respected has been compiled by volunteers rather and used to inform policy, designation and than professional organisations. major development proposals. Natural England • The Winter Gull roost evidence only considers WeBS survey data to be robust and supports the inclusion of a maximum of a reliable to underpin notification. dozen lakes. The winter gull roost survey was focused on • There is no evidence to say that all species those lakes known to be the most frequently need all of the lakes. used and to support the greatest numbers of • In respect of breeding birds, the basic data roosting gulls. Gulls will utilise other areas is from a 7-year-old survey and single within the SSSI boundary and the numbers year’s data. recorded by this survey are therefore likely to • There is no evidence detailing which lakes be an underestimate. each species needs. For example, little As stated in the supporting information a range ringer plover has a specific habitat which is of data sources have been used to determine not present on all lakes. the breeding bird interest of the site. • Given that the previously notified SSSI was Little ringed plover nesting habitat is focused in unfavourable declining condition, as a on discrete areas; however, this species is result of poor water quality and invasive likely to range widely to feed. species, it is illogical to suggest that other With regard to the four notified stonewort areas are favourable to encourage species the case for notification is set out in stoneworts. the supporting information and based on surveys carried out in 2014/15, 2017/18 and 2019/20 by the national expert on stoneworts. Inclusion of Lake 82 within the SSSI. Land The case for the inclusion of Lake 82 is set out owned by Mr Lindley is designated as a Local in section 1.14.3. Wildlife Site. The Environmental Impact Assessment which includes a more recent and extensive assessment of the lake confirms that it does not have the attributes that would warrant inclusion as part of the SSSI.
1.15 Objection from the Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust (Lakes 305a, b, d, f, g and h) Freeths LLP submitted an objection on behalf of the Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust on 4 June 2021.
1.15.1 Objection The Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust object to the notification on the following grounds: • SSSI enlargement as a whole is not scientifically justified; and • inclusion of Eysey Manor Farm in the SSSI is not scientifically justified. The points raised in support of the Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 11.
1.15.2 Consideration of objection From 25 February 2021 to 26 April 2021 officers responded to requests for evidence used to support the notification and information on previous notifications. Officers attended a meeting with Freeths and their consultants on 26 May 2021. Officers wrote to Freeths LLP on 29 July 2021 and
Page 41 of 83 responded to the points raised in their objection. Officers attended a further meeting with Freeths and their consultants on 4 August 2021 after which Freeths wrote to officers on 6 August 2021 requesting clarification on a number of points discussed in the call. Officers responded to this request on 18 August 2021 and also confirmed that a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that Lake 305h be removed from the SSSI boundary.
1.15.3 Scientific justification Lake 305a – WeBS counts record the presence of a range of species which contribute to the non- breeding bird assemblage, in particular wigeon, tufted duck, pochard and teal. Breeding great crested grebe, little grebe, mute swan, reed warbler and long-tailed tit have been recorded. Lake 305b – WeBS counts record the presence of a range of species which contribute to the non- breeding bird assemblage, in particular shoveler, teal, tufted duck, green sandpiper and lapwing. Breeding little ringed plover, bullfinch and long-tailed tit have been recorded. Lake 305d – WeBS counts record the presence of a range of species which contribute to the non- breeding bird assemblage, in particular wigeon, great crested grebe, lesser black-backed gull and tufted duck. Breeding great crested grebe, tufted duck and bullfinch have been recorded. Lake 305f – WeBS counts record the presence of a range of species which contribute to the non- breeding bird assemblage, in particular tufted duck, lapwing and green sandpiper. Lake 305g – this lake is recently restored. WeBS counts for 2018/19 record the presence of a range of species which contribute to the non-breeding bird assemblage, in particular lapwing, green sandpiper, black-headed gull and lesser black-backed gull. There are no WeBS, breeding bird or charophyte data for Lake 305h which has not yet been restored. It was included within the SSSI boundary as it will be restored to a habitat which will support interest features. However as there is no data for this lake and it doesn’t currently support interest features a boundary modification is recommended to remove it from the SSSI.
1.15.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from the Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude lake 305h, a total area of 36.06 ha.
Table 11 Unresolved objections from the Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust Grounds for objection Consideration of objection The data presented is inadequate to underpin See sections 1.8.2 and 1.8.3. or justify great crested grebe as an individual Natural England disagrees with Freeths breeding species, lesser black-backed gull as interpretation of Chapter 17, section 3.11, p7 of an individual wintering species and the the Guidelines8. wintering waterbird assemblage of >20,000. With regard to the qualification for great crested grebe the supporting information states that selection is based on the 2015 breeding bird survey. Regular breeding is demonstrated by further smaller scale surveys in 2018 and 2019 and data supplied by the Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre (1998- 2017) and Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records (2014-2017). The size and extent of the SSSI has been See section 1.8.1. dictated primarily by the >20,000 wintering waterbird assemblage and fails on that basis since the wintering waterbird assemblage is not a valid SSSI interest feature.
8 Part 2: Detailed Guidelines for Habitat and species Groups.
Page 42 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection The enlarged SSSI’s size and extent is not See sections 1.8.1, 1.8.2 and 1.8.3. evidenced or justified by the scientific data presented. No evidence is provided to demonstrate the See sections 1.8.1, 1.8.2 and 1.8.3 and the use of individual lakes by the interest features comments above. or about the distribution of interest features In addition to the existing lakes within the across the lakes. Cotswold Water Park SSSI a number of currently active quarries are included within the site boundary because they currently support interest features and have a planning obligation to be restored to habitat which will continue to support the notified features of the site. Natural England has misapplied its stated This is in relation to the text in the boundary criteria for the inclusion of lakes. determination section (3.5) of the supporting information and the statement which refers to the presence of water in 2017. The text goes on to say “in addition to the existing lakes within the Cotswold Water Park SSSI a number of currently active quarries are included within the site boundary because they currently support interest features and have a planning obligation to be restored to habitat which will continue to support the notified features of the site”. There is therefore a contradiction in the text. Lake 305g is recently restored. WeBS counts for 2018/19 record the presence of a range of species which contribute to the non-breeding bird assemblage, in particular lapwing, green sandpiper, black-headed gull and lesser black- backed gull. This demonstrates the validity of the inclusion of current workings on the basis of restoration plans and Lake 305g should remain in the SSSI. There are no WeBS, breeding bird or charophyte data for Lake 305h which has not yet been restored. It was included within the SSSI boundary as it will be restored to a habitat which will support interest features. However as there is no data for this lake and it doesn’t currently support interest features a boundary modification is recommended to remove it from the SSSI boundary. With reference to the Guidelines9 (para 8.2) See sections 1.8.1 and 1.15.3. insufficient information has been presented to demonstrate that the existing avian interest at Eysey Manor Farm is significant.
9 Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs, Part 1: Rationale, Operational Approach and Criteria for Site Selection (Bainbridge et al. 2013).
Page 43 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection With reference to the Guidelines the inclusion See section 1.8.6. Natural England notes of Eysey Manor Farm is not justified as it will (Appendix 6 of the objection) that the MOD not, in the future, contribute to delivering was unaware of the bird management sustainability/long term viability of the avian agreement at Eysey Manor Farm and that bird interest features. Large sections of the legally hazard management has not been taking required restored habitats will not significantly place. We also note that this does not appear support the breeding or wintering bird interest to have had an impact on air safety. Natural features and bird hazard management control England has committed to work with the MOD obligations, under existing planning and owner occupiers required to carry our bird permission, will deter all birds in perpetuity. hazard management, not covered by current licences or the MOD’s assent, to discuss options for bird management going forward. Bird hazard management is undertaken on a number of lakes within the SSSI. Whilst bird numbers may be reduced as a result, they continue to support interest features. Bird hazard management is only required for a limited number of species and when thresholds for numbers of birds are exceeded. There is no record of the presence of the four Natural England agrees that there is no record notified stonewort species at Eysey Manor of the presence of the four notified stonewort Farm. species at Eysey Manor Farm. Although these species form part of the reasons for notification there is no expectation that they occur in every part of the SSSI. Inclusion of Eysey Manor Farm within the See section 1.8.4. Natural England notes the boundary will not contribute to the proximity of Eysey Manor Farm to lake 301 sustainability or long-term viability of the four where the presence of Chara curta was notified stonewort species. recorded in 2014. Restoration and bird hazard management See section 1.8.5. See text above regarding obligations are incompatible with the “Views bird hazard management. With regard to the about Management” and “Operations restoration works any activity authorised by a Requiring Natural England’s Consent”. planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not affected by the notification. With regard to the ‘Views About Management’ as stated in the notification document this statement sets out, in principle, Natural England’s views on how the site’s special conservation interest can be conserved and enhanced’. It also states that ‘not all of the management principles will necessarily be equally appropriate to all parts of the SSSI’.
1.16 Objection from Mr B Knight (Lakes 202a, b, c, d and e) Mr Knight submitted his objection on 3 June 2021.
1.16.1 Objection Mr Knight objects to the notification on the following grounds: • pre notification consultation; • inclusion of his land which is outlying and includes land which is working quarry or restored to agricultural use, within the SSSI;
Page 44 of 83 • designation should have been delayed until the Environment Act is passed and alternative voluntary options should be considered; and • conflict with legal commitments for bird hazard management. The points raised in support of Mr Knight’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 12.
1.16.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited with Mr Knight on 9 August 2021. Officers wrote to Mr Knight by email on 23 August 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that Lake 202d and areas which have been restored to agricultural use be removed from the SSSI boundary.
1.16.3 Scientific justification The lakes at Dryleaze Farm were in the process of development (by Hills Group) as the pre- notification surveys and data collation were being carried out. Lakes 202a and 202b have WeBS counts from 2011/12. There are WeBS counts for Lake 202c from 2013/14 but no data from after 2016/17. The WeBS counts were dominated by mallard but also include tufted duck, little grebe, teal and green sandpiper. Mallard are not released at Dryleaze Farm and therefore presumed to be wild. Clustered stonewort Tolypella glomerata was recorded within Lake 202e in 2019. There is no WeBS data or charophyte data for lake 202d and no evidence it has held standing water at any stage. There is therefore no evidence that Lake 202d supports the interest features and it does not merit inclusion within the SSSI boundary at this time. Apart from lakes 202a and 202b the lakes in this location now vary significantly from the plans, aerial photos and OS map data used to construct the boundary. A restoration plan received after the notification coupled with the site visit has been used to modify the boundary to remove areas restored to agricultural use which do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.16.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr Knight, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude Lake 202d and areas restored to agricultural use, a total area of 23.33 ha.
Table 12 Unresolved objections from Mr B Knight Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Pre-notification consultation was inadequate See section 1.8.9. Natural England and has resulted in the inclusion of land which acknowledges that Mr Knight does not support the interest features. Mr did not receive some of the pre-notification Knight responded to the prenotification correspondence. Boundary modifications are letter/map of 13 February 2020 and responded recommended to take account of site to inform Natural England that the map was restoration. Despite the impacts of Covid and incorrect but he did not receive a response and suspension of site visits Natural England staff the changes were not reflected in the notified remained accessible to owner occupiers by SSSI boundary. Mr Knight did not receive the phone and email. emails sent to other owner occupiers in June and September 2020.
Page 45 of 83 Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Inclusion of his land which is outlying and See section 1.8.1. and 1.16.3. At its nearest includes land which is working quarry or point Mr Knight’s land is approximately 300m restored to agricultural use, within the SSSI. from the nearest next point of the SSSI boundary. Apart from lakes 202a and 202b the lakes at Dryleaze Farm now vary significantly from the plans, aerial photos and OS map data used to construct the boundary. A boundary modification is recommended to remove Lake 202d from the SSSI boundary as there is no data to confirm it supports the interest features. Designation should have been delayed until See sections 1.8.7 and 1.8.11. the Environment Act is passed and then designation should be revisited in of the 25 Natural England works with land managers to year Environment Plan. Designation will restrict secure the best environmental outcomes for access to future funding mechanisms such as SSSIs. This often involves providing advice ELMS and Biodiversity Net Gain. and helping to secure management funding. Conflict with legal commitments for bird hazard See section 1.8.6. Natural England is in close management. discussions with the MoD regarding Bird Hazard Management Plans. The boundary of the SSSI recognises the high levels of disturbance in certain places and at certain times.
1.17 Objection from Ms G Smith and Mr S Swiokla (Lakes 110, 110a, 111a) Simon Taber of Ecology Solutions Limited submitted an objection on behalf of Ms G Smith and Mr S Swiokla on 7 June 2021.
1.17.1 Objection Ms G Smith and Mr S Swiokla object to the inclusion of lakes 110, 110a, 111a and adjoining land because they do not meet the requisite threshold for notification.
1.17.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Simon Taber of Ecology Solutions Limited by email on 20 August 2021 responding to the objection.
1.17.3 Scientific justification See section 1.8.1. Lake 110 – WeBS counts up to 2015/16 record the presence of small numbers of mallard, tufted duck, mute swan, coot and black-headed gulls. WeBS counts were not carried out after 2015/16. Lake 110a – WeBS counts up to 2016/17 record the presence of small numbers of mallard, tufted duck coot and black-headed gulls. WeBS counts were not carried out after 2016/17. Lake 111a – WeBS counts from 2014/15 to 2018/19 record the presence of larger numbers of a range of species which contribute to the waterbird assemblage. Lake 111a is one of only three lakes which supports a population of pointed stonewort Nitella mucronata. Whilst reviewing this objection a small area of amenity grassland was identified to the north of Lake 110a. The grassland does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.17.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Ms G Smith and Mr S Swiokla, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude an area of amenity grassland, a total area of 0.56 ha.
Page 46 of 83 1.18 Objection from Cotswold Water Park Hire Ltd (Lake 86) Cotswold Water Park Hire Ltd submitted their objection by email on 24 March 2021. 1.18.1 Objection Cotswold Water Park Hire (Lake 86) objection to the inclusion of three areas; an area to the north of the lake housing infrastructure; a strip of vegetation adjacent to a track along the western edge of the holding and an area of scrub at the southern edge of the lake. 1.18.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 4 May 2021 with the owner Mr Hutchins. Officers wrote to Mr Hutchins by email on 21 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the area with commercial infrastructure and the western track plus vegetation strip west of the track be removed from the SSSI boundary. 1.18.3 Scientific justification The area of built development at the north of the lake and the track and canal fringe to the west of the lake do not support the interest features and therefore they do not merit inclusion in the SSSI. The block of scrub at the southern edge of the does support the interest features. Transect data from the breeding bird survey confirmed that birds contributing to the breeding birds of scrub assemblage were present in this area. 1.18.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Cotswold Water Park Hire Ltd the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude commercial infrastructure, a track and strip of vegetation, a total area of 0.26 ha.
1.19 Objection from Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd (Lakes 101, 129 & 129a) Hanson Quarry Products submitted their objection by email of 10 May 2021. 1.19.1 Objection Hanson Quarry Products object to the inclusion of three areas: • a field to the north of Lake 101; • a scout hut, fishing club car park and storage area; and • a narrow roadside strip along the eastern boundary of lakes 101 and 129/129a. 1.19.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 14 June 2021 with the Hanson representative who submitted the objection. Officers wrote to Hanson Quarry Products by email on 17 August 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board to remove the scout hut, fishing club car park and storage area from the SSSI boundary. 1.19.3 Scientific justification The scout hut, fishing club car park and storage area do not support the interest featur es and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The roadside strip is indistinguishable from the rest of the vegetation, so the SSSI boundary as drawn along the road edge is appropriate. The field to the north of Lake 101 is habitat that would support part of the breeding bird assemblage. 1.19.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude the area comprising a scout hut, fishing club car park and storage area, a total area of 0.56 ha.
1.20 Objection from Whitefriars Sailing Club (Lake 26) Mr Crawford submitted an objection on behalf of Whitefriars Sailing Club with an attached letter
Page 47 of 83 from Mr Buffham, by email on 20 May 2021.
1.20.1 Objection Whitefriars Sailing Club object to the inclusion of four areas of land; Whitefriars Lane; a tarmac access lane from the site entrance to the compound entrance; a block of operational land used for temporary storage and a waste water treatment facility and a hardcore track from the compound round the south east of Lake 26. 1.20.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 14 June with Mr Crawford and representatives from Whitefriars Sailing Club. Officers wrote to Whitefriars Sailing Club by email on 14 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the public road, access lane, operational land and area of amenity grassland used for camping be removed from the SSSI boundary. 1.20.3 Scientific justification The two tarmacked roads and storage area do not support the interest features and do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The public road has been included within the boundary in error. The hardcore track is under trees and difficult to map out of the boundary, so is retained. The underground waste water facility is covered with vegetation which is periodically removed to carry out works. Whilst on site an area of amenity grassland used for camping was noted. Neither of these areas support the interest features and they do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. 1.20.4 Officers’ recommendation
With respect to the objection from Whitefriars Sailing Club the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude the public highway, tarmac access lane, block of operational land and amenity grassland, a total area of 1.93 ha.
1.21 Objection from Cirencester Water Ski (Lake 37) Matt Hyam submitted an objection, on behalf of Cirencester Water Ski, by email on 14 April 2021.
1.21.1 Objection Cirencester Water Ski (Lake 37) object to the inclusion of two blocks of land which have planning permission for caravan parking.
1.21.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 20 April 2021. Officers wrote to Cirencester Water Ski by email on 19 August 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the caravan parking areas and some small structures be removed from the SSSI boundary.
1.21.3 Scientific justification The caravan parking areas and built structures do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.21.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Cirencester Water Ski the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to exclude caravan parking and built structures, a total area of 0.65 ha.
1.22 Objection from Mr Barry Ellison (Lake 94) Mr Ellison submitted his objection on 13 April 2021.
Page 48 of 83 1.22.1 Objection Mr Ellison objects to the inclusion of infilled land and commercial coach yard.
1.22.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 20 April 2021. Officers wrote to Mr Ellison by email of 13 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board to remove the coach yard and an area of grassland from the SSSI boundary.
1.22.3 Scientific justification The top quarter of the area had been recently restored, to a commercial coach yard on hardstanding. The rest of the site was infilled and put down to grass, apart from a small (<1ha) waterbody at the southern end used for duck releases for shooting. Most of the area does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The waterbody is able to support waterbirds. Although it is very open, marginal vegetation is starting to develop, and this will allow breeding species to establish. Although dominated by released mallard, recent WeBS data confirms the presence of species from the non-breeding assemblage.
1.22.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr Ellison the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude the coach park and grassland, a total area of 3.75 ha.
1.23 Objection from Keuka Waterski (Lake 106) Mrs Bowen-Jones submitted an objection on behalf of Keuka Waterski, by email on 17 January 2021.
1.23.1 Objection Keuka Waterski object to the inclusion of a house, garden, summerhouse, workshops, plantation and connecting tracks and an area of hardstanding within the SSSI boundary.
1.23.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 8 April 2021, with Mrs Bowen-Jones. Officers wrote to Mrs Bowen-Jones by email on 13 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the house, garden, summerhouse, workshops, plantation and connecting tracks and area of hardstanding be removed from the SSSI boundary.
1.23.3 Scientific justification The areas proposed for exclusion do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.23.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Keuka Waterski the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to remove the house, garden, summerhouse, workshops, plantation and connecting tracks and an area of hardstanding; a total area of 1.74 ha.
1.24 Objection from Mrs Angela Scott (Lake 3) Mrs Scott submitted her objection on 23 February 2021.
1.24.1 Objection Mrs Scott objects to the notification of her lake (Lake 3) in the SSSI on the basis that its inclusion is an infringement of her rights and will adversely affect the value of her property. She also referenced the inability of Natural England to ensure the neighbouring grassland SSSI was
Page 49 of 83 maintained in a good condition.
1.24.2 Consideration of objection The site visited on 5 July 2021 with Mr Scott. Officers wrote to Mrs Scott by email on 6 August 2021 to respond to her general objections and confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that an area of lodge development be removed from the SSSI boundary. Mrs Scott responded on 16 August 2021 to provide further information regarding the lodge development and seek reassurances that their commercial enterprise would not be adversely affected. Natural England replied on 19 August 2021 with a revised boundary modification.
1.24.3 Scientific justification Significant development with planning permission took place prior to notification of the SSSI resulting in the inclusion of a numbers of lodges within the SSSI boundary. WeBS data confirms the presence of species in the non-breeding assemblage. The breeding bird survey recorded great crested grebe as nesting. This objection does not challenge the scientific basis of the notification. However the area comprising the lodges, ancillary hardstanding and amenity grassland does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.24.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Angela Scott the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude lodges, ancillary hardstanding and amenity grassland, a total area of 1.06 ha.
1.25 Objection from Mr Arthur Keith Bowley (Lake 96) Mr Bowley is supportive of the enlarged SSSI but raised an objection to the inclusion of his lake on 19 January 2021.
1.25.1 Objection Mr Bowley objects to the inclusion of Lake 96 within the SSSI as he intends to create a wildlife park on his land.
1.25.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Mr Bowley by email on 6 August 2021 in response to the reasons for his objection.
1.25.3 Scientific justification Lake 96 is one of the smallest lakes within the SSSI. Concomitant with its size it supports small numbers of wintering waterfowl. There is no breeding bird data for this lake and it was not included within the charophyte surveys. Lake 96 forms part of the single ecological unit for the waterbird assemblage.
1.25.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr Bowley the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
1.26 Objection from Aspen Lake Ltd (Lake 81) Bob and Mary Lewis submitted an objection by email on 2 June 2021 and a supplementary email on 4 June 2021.
1.26.1 Objection Mr & Mrs Lewis object to the notification on the following grounds;
Page 50 of 83 • that it is unnecessary because the wildlife is doing well with current management; • that notification and the administrative burden of the ORNECs will lead to lakes becoming unmanaged; • that no survey was carried out on their property; • that Natural England’s project to reintroduce otters has had serious knock-on effects and plans to reintroduce beavers would do likewise; and • that notification will reduce property prices. The points raised in support of Aspen Lake Ltd’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 13.
1.26.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Mr & Mrs Lewis by email on 5 August 2021 in response to their objections.
1.26.3 Scientific justification WeBS data records a range of waterbirds from the non-breeding assemblage are present on Lake 81. Local Record Centre data records the presence of breeding great crested grebe. Lake 81 supports some of the interest features and merits inclusion within the SSSI.
1.26.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr and Mrs Lewis the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 13 Unresolved objections from Aspen Lake Ltd Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Notification is unnecessary because the wildlife See section 1.8.11. is doing well with current management. Notification and the administrative burden of See section 1.8.5 . the ORNECs will lead to lakes becoming unmanaged. No survey was carried out on their property. There is no public access to Lake 81 and no Natural England funded surveys were carried out. WeBS data is available for Lake 81. Natural England’s project to reintroduce otters Neither Natural England, nor its predecessors, has had serious knock-on effects and plans to have been involved in any project to introduce reintroduce beavers would do likewise. otters to the Cotswold Water Park. Natural England has no plans to introduce beavers to the Cotswold water Park. Any introduction would require a licence in line with Government policy. Notification will reduce property prices. See section 1.8.7.
1.27 Objection from Coln Park LLP/Lakes by Yoo (Lakes 112, 123, 125, 126 & 127) Corylus Ltd submitted an objection on behalf of Coln Park LLP/Lakes by Yoo on 4 June 2021. Coln Park LLP is supportive of the principle of designation and welcomes the recognition of the Cotswold Water Park but raised an objection to inclusion of an area within the SSSI.
1.27.1 Objection Coln Park LLP/Lakes by Yoo object to the inclusion of an area where implementation of a planning permission is nearing completion and areas of amenity grassland within the SSSI boundary.
Page 51 of 83 1.27.2 Consideration of objection Extensive correspondence has taken place between Coln Park LLP, their consultant and Cotswold District Council. Officers have carried out site visits on 8 April and 6 July 2021. Officers wrote to Corylus Ltd by email on 31 August 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that new/part-built lodges, associated ancillary areas, amenity grassland and a stretch of newly created open water, be removed from the SSSI boundary.
1.27.3 Scientific justification The planning permission position is complex. Coln Park estimate there are several hundred separate permissions and some applications to amend existing permissions were being considered at the time of notification. The structure of the lakes and surrounding land differs markedly from current OS mapping and the most recent aerial photography. A revised boundary has been produced that corresponds with the current position with areas of water in their final form, and lodge developments in the process of construction. The areas of open grassland and built/part-built lodges with their ancillary developments do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The notified SSSI boundary includes an area of open water which does not have a WeBS number and did not exist in 2017. It has been dug from fill material on a former industrial site and is surrounded by new or part- built lodges. On this basis it should be removed from the SSSI boundary.
1.27.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Coln Park LLP/Lakes by Yoo the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude new/part-built lodges, associated ancillary areas, amenity grassland and a stretch of newly created open water; a total area of 15.24 ha.
1.28 Objection from Breedon Group Tim Billingham, Wales & South – Managing Director, submitted an objection on behalf of Breedon Group on 25 February 2021.
1.28.1 Objection Breedon Group have a sub-lease from Tarmac-Lafarge who lease Eysey Manor Farm. They object to the notification on the following grounds: • The SSSI consultation process. • The notification process. • The requirement to consult Natural England before carrying out any of the operations requiring Natural England’s consent. • Data to support notification of the SSSI. The points raised in support of Breedon Group’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 14.
1.28.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote Breedon Group by email on 6 August 2021 in response to the concerns raised in their objection.
1.28.3 Scientific justification The objection does not challenge the scientific assessment of special interest.
Page 52 of 83 1.28.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Breedon Group the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 14 Unresolved objections from Breedon Group Grounds for objection Consideration of objection The SSSI consultation process. See sections 1.8.9. The notification process. See section 1.8.10. Hope Construction Materials Ltd (predecessor to Breedon Group) was notified on 7 January 2021. The requirement to consult Natural England See section 1.8.5. before carrying out any of the operations requiring Natural England’s consent. Data to support the notification. Officers have explained the reasons for notification and directed the Breedon Group to the notification documents and supporting information available via CitizenSpace.
1.29 Objection from Mr M Thomas (Watermark Ltd) (Lake 16) Andrew P Jones Associates submitted an objection on behalf of Mr M Thomas (Watermark Ltd) on 14 April 2021.
1.29.1 Objection Mr Thomas objects to the notification on the basis of its impact on future development of Lake 16, citing the recent refusal of planning consent for new fishing cabins.
1.29.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Andrew P Jones Associates by email on 5 August 2021 in response to the concerns raised in the objection. Refusal of the planning application was based on a range of Council policies, with only a brief mention of the SSSI – see section 1.8.7.
1.29.3 Scientific justification Lake 16 is one of the most important lakes in the Cotswold Water Park SSSI, hosting a significant roost of gulls. Local Record Centre record include breeding nightingale and Cetti’s warbler. WeBS counts confirm the non-breeding assemblage is well represented, with large numbers of coot and tufted duck.
1.29.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr M Thomas (Watermark Ltd) the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
1.30 Objection from Mr Bernard Sparkes and Mr Luke Sparkes (Lake 113) Luke Sparkes submitted an initial objection on 22 March 2021 and a further objection on 5 June 2021.
1.30.1 Objection Luke and Bernard Sparkes object to the inclusion of formal gardens, grass areas used as overflow parking and an area where brash was burned within the SSSI boundary. They also object to the notification on the following grounds: • designation is unnecessary; • lack of pre notification consultation;
Page 53 of 83 • the impact of the ORNECs on current activities; • the failure of the previous notification; • the robustness of the data to support designation; • issues with the underlying data; • the financial impact of designation and • the inclusion of Lake 113 within the SSSI. The points raised in support of Mr Bernard Sparkes’ and Mr Luke Sparkes’ objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 15.
1.30.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited with Bernard and Luke Sparkes on 4 May 2021. Officers wrote to Mr Sparkes by email on 15 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that an area of garden, grass used for parking and sheds be removed from the SSSI boundary. After the second objection was submitted on 5 June 2021 and further exchanges of email in relation to the boundary all but one of the proposed boundary changes have been agreed. The unresolved area is a 2-metre margin from the lake edge which supports marginal vegetation. Officers wrote to Mr Sparkes by email on 6 August 2021 addressing the further concerns raised in the objection of 5 June.
1.30.3 Scientific justification Lake 113 is a small lake on the edge of the SSSI. WeBS data confirms the presence of wintering waterfowl. No charophyte or breeding bird data are available. The areas of garden, grass used for parking and sheds do not support the special interest features and are recommended for exclusion. The remaining unresolved boundary objection relates to a 2-metre margin from the lake edge on the northern and eastern margins of Lake 113, which supports vegetation suitable for breeding and non-breeding birds.
1.30.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Bernard and Luke Sparkes the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude an area of garden, grass used for parking and sheds; a total area of 0.46 ha. Table 15 Unresolved objections from Mr Bernard Sparkes and Mr Luke Sparkes Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is unnecessary. See section 1.8.11. Lack of pre notification consultation. See section 1.8.9. The impact of the ORNECs on current See section 1.8.5. activities. The failure of the previous notification. See section 1.8.12 Data used to support the notification is out of See sections 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4. Natural date and not robust. England considered the data to be valid to support notification. The financial impact of designation. See section 1.8.7. Inclusion of Lake 113 within the SSSI See sections 1.8.1 and 1.30.3.
1.31 Objection from James, Susan & Richard Seeds (Lake 83) James, Susan and Richard Seeds sent an initial letter regarding mental health on 26 May 2021 and submitted their objection on 4 June 2021.
1.31.1 Objection The Seeds object to the notification on the following grounds:
Page 54 of 83 • pre notification engagement; • notification process; • bureaucracy of the ORNECs; • failure of the previous notification • validity of the WeBS data; • inclusion of Lake 83 within the SSSI; and • impact on mental health. The points raised in support of James, Susan and Richard Seeds’ objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 16.
1.31.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to the Seeds by email on 2 June 2021 in response to their letter of 26 May 2021. A response to their objection was sent by email on 6 August 2021.
1.31.3 Scientific justification WeBS data confirms the presence of wintering waterfowl in particular good numbers of wigeon, pochard and tufted duck. Great crested grebe is recorded as breeding on this lake.
1.31.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from James, Susan and Richard Seeds the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 16 Unresolved objections from James, Susan and Richard Seeds Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Pre notification engagement. See section 1.8.9. Notification process. See section 1.8.10. Bureaucracy of ORNECs. See section 1.8.5. The failure of the previous notification. See section 1.8.12. Validity of the WeBS data See section 1.8.3. Natural England considers the data to be valid to support notification. Inclusion of lake 83 within the SSSI See section 1.8.1 and 1.31.3. Issues relating to mental health. Officers wrote to offer a meeting to discuss the issues causing concern.
1.32 Objection from Mr J F & Mrs S F Ellis (Lake 74) Mr Ellis submitted an objection on 28 January 2021.
1.32.1 Objection Mr Ellis objects to the inclusion of his land/part of Lake 74 within the SSSI.
1.32.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 16 March 2020 prior to notification, with Mr Ellis. Officers wrote to Mr Ellis by email on 9 August 2021 to explain the reasons for notification.
1.32.3 Scientific justification Mr Ellis’s tenure extends to a strip of water 20 m from the bank of Lake 74. Lake 74 has the highest number of wintering waterfowl, recorded on WeBS, within the SSSI.
Page 55 of 83 1.32.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr & Mrs Ellis the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
1.33 Objection from Mr N C & Mrs A Dorricott (Lake 74) Mr Dorricott submitted an objection by email on 7 March 2021 and further details on 21 March 2021.
1.33.1 Objection Mr and Mrs Dorricott object to the notification on the following grounds: • Pre notification consultation; • ORNECs and impacts on future management; • Failure of the previous designation; • Boundary not clearly defined in their property; and • No information regarding the special interest present on their property. The points raised in support of Mr & Mrs Dorricott’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 17.
1.33.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 16 March 2020 prior to notification with Mrs Dorricott. Officers wrote to Mr and Mrs Dorricott by email on 7 July 2021 to clarify the position of the SSSI boundary and respond to the concerns raised in their objection.
1.33.3 Scientific justification Mr and Mrs Dorricott own a property on the north bank of Lake 74. Their ownership extends to a 20m strip of marginal habitat and open water. Lake 74 has the highest number of wintering waterfowl, recorded on WeBS, within the SSSI.
1.33.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr and Mrs Dorricott the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 17 Unresolved objections from Mr and Mrs Dorricott Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Pre notification consultation. See section 1.8.9. The ORNECs and impacts on future See section 1.8.5. management. The failure of the previous notification. See section 1.8.12 Boundary not clearly defined on their property. Officers visited prior to notification to clarify the boundary and reconfirmed the boundary in their response to the objection. No information regarding the special interest Officers detailed the special interest at Lake 74 present on their property. in their response to the objection and provided a link to the supporting information for the notification.
1.34 Objection from Pinnacle Trustees Ltd (Lake 62) Kevin Jones, Director of Pinnacle Trustees Ltd submitted an objection on behalf of Quinque Stella Holdings Limited on 19 April 2021.
Page 56 of 83 1.34.1 Objection Pinnacle Trustees Ltd object to the inclusion of Lake 62 within the SSSI as it is used for recreational purposes.
1.34.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Kevin Jones by email on 4 August 2021 to confirm that recreational use would be able to continue and outline the process Natural England has put in place with regard to applying for consent.
1.34.3 Scientific justification WeBS data records the presence of a range of species from the non-breeding assemblage, including large number of tufted ducks. Great crested grebe, mute swan, garden warbler and long- tailed tit are recorded as breeding on or around the lake.
1.34.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Pinnacle Trustees Ltd the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
1.35 Objection from Mr R D James (Lake 135) Stuart Milsom of Moore Allen & Innocent LLP submitted an objection on behalf of Mr R D James by email on 7 June 2021.
1.35.1 Objection Mr James objects to the notification on the following grounds: • designation is unnecessary; • ORNECs and impacts on future management; • failure of the previous designation; and • pre notification consultation. The points raised in support of Mr James’ objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 18.
1.35.1 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Stuart Milsom of Moore Allen & Innocent LLP by email on 4 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised in the objection.
1.35.2 Scientific justification WeBS counts are irregular at Lake 135. The most recent was in 2016-17 recorded the presence of 285 wigeon alongside other species from the non-breeding assemblage. Great crested grebe and mute swan are recorded as breeding.
1.35.3 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr James the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 18 Unresolved objections from Mr R D James Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is unnecessary. See section 1.8.11. ORNECs and impacts on future management. See section 1.8.5. The failure of the previous notification. See section 1.8.12 Pre notification consultation. See section 1.8.9.
Page 57 of 83 1.36 Objection from Mr Ross F Baker (Ross Manufacturing Ltd) (Lake 95) Mr Baker of Ross Manufacturing Ltd submitted his objection by email on 7 June 2021.
1.36.1 Objection Mr Baker objects to the notification on the following grounds: • pre notification communication; • the impact of the notification on future development; • lack of evidence to support designation; and • Natural England’s ability to manage the SSSI. The points raised in support of Mr Baker’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 19.
1.36.2 Consideration of objection Requests for a site visit have been refused. Officers wrote to Mr Baker by email on 4 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised in his objection.
1.36.3 Scientific justification WeBS data records consistently high numbers of wintering waterfowl, particularly teal, tufted duck and gadwall using Lake 95. The breeding bird survey recorded an extensive list of species which are part of the notified breeding bird assemblage notably gadwall, water rail, tufted duck little grebe and a large population of reed warblers.
1.36.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr Baker, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 19 Unresolved objections from Mr Ross F Baker (Ross Manufacturing Ltd) Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Pre notification consultation. See section 1.8.9. The impact of notification on future See section 1.8.7. development. Lack of evidence to support designation. Officers have explained the special interest of the site and provided a link to the supporting information which details the evidence used to determine the special interest. Natural England’s ability to manage the SSSI. See section 1.8.12.
1.37 Objection from Mr Simon Ward (Lake 75) Mr Ward submitted his objection on 26 January 2021. Supplementary information was received on 5 February 2021.
1.37.1 Objection Mr Ward objects to the inclusion of some of his land within the SSSI boundary and to the notification on the following grounds: • Natural England’s track record managing SSSIs; • blanket approach to notification; • designation is unnecessary; and • the impact of the ORNECs on management and planned site improvements.
Page 58 of 83 The points raised in support of Mr Ward’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 20.
1.37.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited with Mr Ward on 20 April 2021. Officers wrote to Mr Ward by email on 6 August 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that wood processing buildings/areas and grassland with a recently planted orchard be removed from the boundary. The letter also responded to Mr Wards other grounds for objection.
1.37.3 Scientific justification WeBS data records the presence of a wide range of species from the non-breeding waterbird assemblage, in particularly wigeon and tufted duck. Included within the boundary are wood processing buildings/areas and grassland with a recently planted orchard. These do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.37.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr Ward the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to exclude wood processing buildings/areas and grassland with a recently planted orchard, a total area of 0.34 ha.
Table 20 Unresolved objections from Mr Simon Ward Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Natural England’s track record managing See section 1.8.12 SSSIs. Blanket approach to notification. See section 1.8.1. Designation is unnecessary. See section 1.8.11. The impact of the ORNECs on management See section 1.8.5. and planned site improvements.
1.38 Objection from Mr Thomas Bankes (Lake 27) Mr Bankes submitted his objection by email on 7 June 2021.
1.38.1 Objection Mr Bankes objects to the notification on the following grounds: • designation is too late to have an impact and therefore unnecessary; • the ORNECs – owner occupiers know how to manage their land; and • Natural England’s ability to manage the SSSI, in particular the causes of poor water quality. The points raised in support of Mr Bankes’ objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 21.
1.38.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Mr Bankes by email on 5 July 2021 and responded to the concerns raised in his objection.
1.38.3 Scientific justification WeBS data for Lake 27 records the presence of a wide range of species from the non-breeding waterbird assemblage, with larger numbers of tufted duck, The only breeding bird record is for mute swan.
Page 59 of 83 1.38.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr Bankes the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 21 Unresolved objections from Mr Bankes Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is too late to have an impact and See section 1.8.11. therefore unnecessary. The ORNECs – owner occupiers know how to See section 1.8.5. manage their land. Natural England’s ability to manage the SSSI, See section 1.8.12. The causes of poor water in particular the causes of poor water quality. quality in parts of the SSSI are complex. Natural England is working with partners to address the underlying issues.
1.39 Objection from Grasshopper Trading Limited (Lakes 33, 43,65 and 91) Mr Holland-Martin submitted an objection, on behalf of Grasshopper Trading Limited on 7 June 2021.
1.39.1 Objection Grasshopper Trading Limited objects to the notification on the following grounds: • designation is unnecessary; • no data regarding the inclusion of each lake has been supplied; • the quality of the data used to support designation: • pre notification communication; and • the administrative burden of notification. The points raised in support of Grasshopper Trading Limited’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 22.
1.39.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Grasshopper Trading Limited by email on 5 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised in their objection.
1.39.3 Scientific justification Lake 33 - WeBS data records the presence of a range of species from the non-breeding waterbird assemblage with tufted duck most numerous. Great crested grebe and coot are recorded as breeding. Lake 43 – WeBS data records the presence of a range of species from the non-breeding waterbird assemblage with tufted duck and coot the most numerous. Great crested grebe, mute swan, coot, reed bunting, garden warbler, sedge warbler, Cetti’s warbler, grasshopper warbler and nightingale are recorded as breeding. Lake 65 – WeBS data records the presence of a range of species from the non-breeding waterbird assemblage, in particular tufted duck, coot and pochard. Lake 91 – WeBS data records the presence of a range of species from the non-breeding waterbird assemblage, with tufted duck and coot the most numerous. Tufted duck are recorded as breeding.
1.39.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Grasshopper Trading Limited the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Page 60 of 83 Table 22 Unresolved objections from Grasshopper Trading Limited Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is unnecessary. See section 1.8.11. No data regarding the inclusion of each lake See section 1.8.1. has been supplied. The quality of the data used to support See sections 1.8.2, 1.8.3 and 1.8.4. designation. Pre notification communication. See section 1.8.9. The administrative burden of notification. See section 1.8.5.
1.40 Objection from Berite Sawmills (Lake 17) Mr Garbutt of Berite Sawmills submitted an objection on 22 January 2021.
1.40.1 Objection Berite Sawmills object to the inclusion of an area used for the stocking of timber and association products, within the SSSI.
1.40.2 Consideration of objection Recent aerial photography (which Berite Sawmills had used in their submission) confirmed the presence of the timber/product storage area. Officers wrote to Mr Garbutt by email on 2 August 2021 to confirm that a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the timber/product storage area be removed from the SSSI boundary.
1.40.3 Scientific justification The timber/product storage area does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI..
1.40.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Berite Sawmills the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude a timber/product storage area, a total area of 0.07 ha.
1.41 Objection from Wildmoor Waters and The Willows (Lake 2b) John Dyton of Eric Cole Ltd submitted an objection, on behalf of Wildmoor Waters and The Willows via Citizenspace on 1 June 2021. 1.41.1 Objection Wildmoor Waters and The Willows object to the inclusion of buildings, roads and gardens within the SSSI. 1.41.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 17 August 2021 with Mr Dyton. Officers wrote to Mr Dyton by email on 26 August 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the buildings, roads and gardens be removed from the SSSI boundary. 1.41.3 Scientific consideration The buildings with ancillary developments, gardens and roads identified during the site visit do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. 1.41.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Wildmoor Waters and The Willows the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude buildings, roads and gardens, a total area of 0.43 ha.
Page 61 of 83 1.42 Objection from Aggregate Industries UK Limited (Lakes 74a and 26) John Penny submitted an objection on behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Limited on 4 June 2021. 1.42.1 Objection Aggregate Industries UK Limited object to the inclusion of two blocks of post-restoration woodland planting, one at Lake 74a and the other at their North End Works adjoining Lake 26. 1.42.2 Consideration of objection No site visit was carried out. The two areas of new plantation woodland were included in the boundary in error. Officers wrote to Mr Penny by email on 26 August 2021 to confirm that a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the two areas of plantation woodland be removed from the boundary. 1.42.3 Scientific consideration The plantation woodland does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI. 1.42.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Aggregate Industries UK Limited the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude two areas of plantation woodland, a total area of 3.41 ha.
1.43 Objection from the Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises The Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises submitted an objection on 29 April 2021. 1.43.1 Objection The Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises object to the notification on the grounds of its impact on air safety. 1.43.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to the Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises by email on 4 August 2021 to confirm that a license and assent had been granted to the MOD and also to confirm that Natural England is working with the MOD to ensure appropriate bird hazard management can continue. 1.43.3 Scientific consideration The Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises’ objection does not challenge the assessment of special interest.
1.43.4 Officers’ recommendation With regard to the objection from the Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
1.44 Objection from B J & C E Ford B J & C E Ford submitted an objection on 4 June 2021. 1.44.1 Objection B J & C E Ford object to the notification on the following grounds: • the failure of the previous designation; • the impact of the ORNECs on management; • pre-notification communication; • uncertainty whether their land is included within the boundary; • The quality of evidence used to support designation;
Page 62 of 83 • designation is unnecessary; and • the financial impact of designation. The points raised in support of B J & C E Ford’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 23. 1.44.2 Consideration of objection B J & C E Ford are not an owner or occupier of land within the SSSI. Officers wrote to B J & C E Ford by email on 4 August 2021 to confirm that their land is not within the SSSI boundary and to respond to the further concerns raised in their objection. 1.44.3 Scientific consideration B J & C E Ford have raised concerns regarding the quality of data used to support the designation See sections 1.8.1-1.8.4. 1.44.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from B J & C E Ford the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 23 Unresolved objections from B J & C E Ford Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is unnecessary. See section 1.8.11. Pre notification communication. See section 1.8.9. The impact of the ORNECs on management. See section 1.8.5. The failure of the previous notification. See section 1.8.12 The quality of the data used to support See sections 1.8.1-1.8.4. Natural England designation. considers the data to be valid to support notification. The financial impact of designation. See section 1.8.7. Uncertainty whether their land is included Officers have confirmed that B J & C E Ford within the SSSI boundary. are not an owner or occupier of land within the SSSI.
1.45 Objection from Emerald Development & Consulting Steve Cole of Emerald Development & Consulting submitted an objection on 4 June 2021. 1.45.1 Objection Emerald Development & Consulting object to the notification on the following grounds: • designation is unnecessary; • the financial impact of designation on the extractive minerals industry; • the basis on which special interest has been determined and quality of data used to support designation; • bird hazard management; and • The unfavourable condition of SSSIs and Natural England ability to manage SSSIs. The points raised in support of Emerald Development & Consulting’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 24. 1.45.2 Consideration of objection Emerald Development & Consulting are not an owner or occupier of land within the SSSI. Officers wrote to Mr Cole by email on 4 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised in the objection. 1.45.3 Scientific consideration Emerald Development & Consulting have raised concerns regarding the basis on which special
Page 63 of 83 interest has been determined and the quality of data used to support designation. See sections 1.8.1-1.8.4. 1.45.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Emerald Development & Consulting the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 24 Unresolved objections from Emerald Development & Consulting Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is unnecessary. See section 1.8.11. The basis on which special interest has been See sections 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3 and 1.8.4. determined and quality of the data used to support designation. The unfavourable condition of SSSIs and See section 1.8.12. Natural England’s ability to manage SSSIs. Bird hazard management. See section 1.8.6 The financial impact of designation. See section 1.8.7.
1.46 Objection from the British Aggregates Association Mr Huxtable submitted an objection on behalf of the British Aggregates Association by email on 7 June 2021. 1.46.1 Objection The British Aggregates Association objects to the notification on the following grounds: • the designation is not necessary; • the basis on which the special interest has been determined and the quality of the data used to support designation; • the pre notification process; • the impact of designation on future mineral extractions; • bird hazard management; and • the condition of the previous SSSI and Natural England’s ability to manage the SSSI. The points raised in support of the British Aggregates Association’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 25. 1.46.2 Consideration of objection The British Aggregates Association is not an owner or occupier of land within the SSSI. Officers wrote to Mr Huxtable by email on 10 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised. 1.46.3 Scientific consideration The British Aggregates Association has raised concerns regarding the basis on which special interest has been determined and the quality of data used to support designation. See sections 1.8.1-1.8.4. 1.46.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the object from the British Aggregates Association the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Page 64 of 83 Table 25 Unresolved objections from the British Aggregates Association Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is unnecessary. See section 1.8.11. The basis on which special interest has been See sections 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3 and 1.8.4. determined and quality of the data used to support designation. The condition of the previous SSSI and Natural See section 1.8.12. England’s ability to manage the SSSI. Bird hazard management. See section 1.8.6. The financial impact of designation. See section 1.8.7. The pre notification process. See section 1.8.9.
1.47 Objection from Land and Mineral Management John Salmon submitted an objection on behalf of Land and Mineral Management on 4 May 2021. 1.47.1 Objection Land and Mineral Management objects to the notification on the following grounds: • designation is premature and not necessary to enhance the site; and • designation will hinder future development and the supply of raw building materials. The points raised in support of Land and Mineral Management’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 26. 1.47.2 Consideration of objection Land and Mineral Management is not an owner or occupier of land within the SSSI. Officers wrote to Mr Salmon by email on 4 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised. 1.47.3 Scientific consideration Land and Mineral Management recognises the importance of Cotswold water Park and does not challenge the assessment of special interest. 1.47.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Land and Mineral Management the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 26 Unresolved objections from Land and Mineral Management Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation is premature and not necessary to See section 1.8.11. Action is required now enhance the site. because there is increasing pressure on the special interest of the site as a result of development. Designation will hinder future development and See section 1.8.7. the supply of raw building materials.
1.48 Objection from the Cotswold Canals Trust and supporters Ken Burgin submitted an objection on behalf of the Cotswold Canals Trust on 29 May 2021. Mr Burgin also solicited consultation responses from supporters of the Cotswold Canals Trust and Natural England subsequently received 185 representations expressing concerns on the same grounds as those raised by Mr Burgin. 1.48.1 Objection The Cotswold Canals Trust and its 185 supporters object to the notification on the following grounds: • Designation will hinder proposals to restore the canal. The Cotswold Canals Trust has
Page 65 of 83 requested a boundary modification to leave a 50m working zone on both sides of the existing and former canal route. • ORNECs – added bureaucracy for routine maintenance much of which is carried out by volunteers. The points raised in support of the Cotswold Canal Trust’s and supporters’ objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 27. 1.48.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Mr Burgin by email on 6 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised in the objection. Officers also responded to all 185 of the Cotswold Canals Trust supporters who submitted representations. 1.48.3 Scientific consideration Modification to leave a 50m working zone on both sides of the existing and former canal route would result in the removal of habitat, including parts of lakes, which support the support the interest features of the SSSI. 1.48.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from the Cotswold Canals Trust and its 185 supporters, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 27 Unresolved objections from the Cotswold Canals Trust and supporters Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Designation will hinder proposals to restore the Officers have written to the Cotswold Canals canal. The Cotswold Canals Trust have Trust to confirm that a restored Cotswold requested a boundary modification to leave a Canal is integral to Natural England’s vision for 50m working zone on both sides of the existing the SSSI. As a result of early conversations in and former canal route. 2020 the extant canal and towpath were excluded from the boundary. Following discussion with owner occupiers, officers also recommend a boundary modification (west of Lake 86) which would exclude a significant section of land abutting the canal. Officers have proposed an integrated working group including the Canal & River Trust, Cotswold Canals Trust and Wilts & Berks Canal Trust to consider restorations in the area. ORNECs and impacts on future management. See section 1.8.5.
1.49 Objection from the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust Mr Stovold submitted an objection on behalf of the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust on May 2021. Further details were provided by Gordon Olson, Chief Executive Officer of the Trust on 2 June 2021. 1.49.1 Objection The Wilts & Berks Canal Trust objects to notification on the grounds that no allowance is made for the restoration of the canal and that it does not take account of Wiltshire Council policies on canal restoration. They request that: • the area south of the line of the Thames and Severn Canal is removed from the SSSI boundary; and • the boundary is modified to allow for construction. The points raised in support of the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 28.
Page 66 of 83 1.49.2 Consideration of objection Officers wrote to Mr Olson by email on 6 August and responded to the concerns raised and request made in the objection. On 25 August 2021 officers wrote to Mr Olson again to confirm that as a result of discussions with owner occupiers a recommendation will be made to remove Lake 305h at Eysey Manor from the boundary (see section 1.15). 1.49.3 Scientific consideration Modification of the boundary as requested would result in the removal of habitat which supports the interest features of the site. 1.49.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude lake 305h, a total area of 36.06 ha.
Table 28 Unresolved objections from the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust Grounds for objection Consideration of objection No allowance is made for the restoration of the Officers have written to the Wilts & Berks canal. Canal Trust to confirm that a restored canal is integral to Natural England’s vision the for SSSI. On 25 August officers wrote to Mr Olson to confirm that as a result of discussions with owner occupiers a recommendation will be made to remove Lake 305h from the boundary. This was one of the boundary changes requested in the objection. Officers have proposed an integrated working including the Canal & River Trust, Cotswold canals Trust and Wilts & Berks Canal Trust to consider restorations in the area. The restoration does not take account of Wiltshire Core Strategy: Core policy 53 states Wiltshire Council policies on canal restoration that “Proposals for the reinstatement of canal along these historic alignments or any alternative alignments will need to demonstrate that the cultural, historic and natural environment will be protected and enhanced, with no overall adverse effect, and that potential impacts on ecology, landscape, flood risk, water resources (abstraction) and water quality have been fully assessed and taken into account”. The removal of habitat which supports the interest features of the SSSI is not consistent with this statement.
1.50 Objection from The Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP Sir Geoffrey submitted his objection (after the closure of the consultation period) in an email to Natural England Chief Executive Marian Spain on 12 August 2021. 1.50.1 Objection Sir Geoffrey explained that he objects based on objections submitted to Natural England by: • Ken Burgin of Cotswold Canals Trust (see section 1.48). • Ministry of Defence (see section 1.9). • Burges Salmon on behalf of Lord de Mauley and others (see section 1.10). Sir Geoffrey also objects based on concerns raised with him by Councillor Dom Morris:
Page 67 of 83 • Inadequate consultation. • Inadequacies of the notification process. • Using an outdated tool when a more workable one exists. • Shortcomings in the scientific case made. • The failure of the original SSSI. • The lack of logic for the boundaries drawn. • The inappropriateness of the list of activities requiring Natural England’s consent. • Legal errors concerning Natural England’s discretion to designate. • Lack of proportionality. • The wilful destruction of value in land for no compensation. • Agricultural fields are included in the SSSI. The points raised in support of Sir Geoffrey’s objection and Natural England’s responses are summarised in Table 29. 1.50.2 Consideration of objection Marian Spain responded to the objection in a letter dated 27 August 2021, also referring Sir Geoffrey to earlier correspondence with his office regarding matters raised by his constituents. 1.50.3 Scientific justification See sections 1.8.1-1.8.4, 1.9.3 and 1.10.3. 1.50.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation without modification.
Table 29 Unresolved objections from Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP Grounds for objection Consideration of objection Objection from Ken Burgin, Cotswold Canals See section 1.48 Trust Objection from Ministry of Defence See section 1.9 Objection from Burges Salmon See section 1.10 Inadequate consultation See section 1.8.9 Inadequacies of the notification process See section 1.8.10 Using an outdated tool when a more workable See section 1.8.11 one exists Shortcomings in the scientific case made See sections 1.8.1-1.8.4 The failure of the original SSSI See section 1.8.12 The lack of logic for the boundaries drawn See section 1.8.1 The inappropriateness of the list of activities See section 1.8.5 requiring Natural England’s consent Legal errors concerning Natural England’s See section 1.8.8 discretion to designate Lack of proportionality The wilful destruction of value in land for no See section 1.8.7 compensation Agricultural fields are included in the SSSI No agricultural land is included within the SSSI boundary.
1.51 Objection from Mr E Keyser and Mr N Keyser Stuart Milsom of Moore Allen & Innocent LLP submitted an objection on behalf of Edward and
Page 68 of 83 Nicholas Keyser on 7 June 2021. 1.51.1 Objection Edwards and Nicholas Keyser object to the notification on the following grounds: • the restrictions of the ORNEC list; • Natural England’s ability to manage a bigger site; • designation is unnecessary; and • pre-notification communication. 1.51.2 Consideration of objection A site visit with Edward Keyser was held prior to notification on 12 February 2020. Officers wrote to Edward and Nicholas Keyser by email on 10 August 2021 and responded to the concerns raised in the objection. Following a further review of the evidence for Lake 136 officers wrote to Edward and Nicholas Keyser by email on 31 August 2021 to confirm that a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that lake 136 be removed from the SSSI boundary. 1.51.3 Scientific consideration The area within which Lake 136 is located has been very recently restored and it now occupies the corner of an arable field. Although it has habitat connectivity with Lakes 129/129a there is no data to confirm the presence of interest features. 1.51.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr E Keyser and Mr N Keyser the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude Lake 136, a total area of 2.72 ha.
1.52 Part-resolved objection from The Lower Mill Estate Ltd (Lakes 77 & 47) Lower Mill Estate Ltd submitted an objection on 12 March 2021. Lower Mill Estate Ltd is supportive of the enlarged SSSI but raised an objection to the inclusion of four areas within the SSSI boundary.
1.52.1 Objection The Lower Mill Estate Ltd objects to the inclusion of a service area, part of Minety Lake which has been infilled (Lake 77), Howells Barn (Lake 47) and an adjoining paddock which has planning permission for a lodge.
1.52.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited with Lower Mill Estate representatives on 4 May 2021. Officers wrote to The Lower Mill Estate Ltd by email on 13 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the service area, part of Minety Lake and formal gardens at Howells Barn be removed from the SSSI boundary. Will Vicary of Habitat First Group confirmed by email on 12 August 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address their concerns regarding these areas but that their objection to inclusion of the plot adjacent to Howells Barn remains.
1.52.3 Scientific justification The service area comprises hardstanding, concrete chambers, foul water pumps, gas tanks and an electrical substation and does not support the interest features. It does not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The area at Minety Lake is recently infilled as part of an extant planning permission and does not support the interest features. It does not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The Howells Barn objection relates to the grounds of the house which comprise landscaped garden, marginal vegetation and a small area of the lake. The landscaped gardens do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The area of marginal
Page 69 of 83 vegetation and lake supports the interest features and should be retained. Howells Barn Paddock is an area of scrubland which supports the breeding bird interest feature. The planning permission for this area has not been implemented. This area should be retained within the SSSI.
1.52.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from The Lower Mill Estate Ltd the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to remove the service area, infilled area of Minety Lake and landscaped gardens at Howells Barn, a total area of 0.71 ha.
1.53 Resolved objections from Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby (Lake 118) Burges Salmon submitted an objection, on behalf of Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby on 2 June 2021 which is detailed in section 1.10. Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby submitted a further objection principally relating to land in their ownership on 4 June 2021.
1.53.1 Objection Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby object to the notification on the following grounds: • Scientific – inadequate justification for the inclusion of all lakes, regular use not proven, use of out-of-date data and population thresholds, use of inconsistent data, declines in bird populations. • Boundary errors - the boundary for Little Faringdon Lake includes built structures, tarmac track, hardstanding and amenity grassland. • Designation is unnecessary and disproportionate. Natural England can achieve its statutory purpose better through other means. • Failures of consultation process. Lord de Mauley had not received the notification and communication prior to notification was inadequate. • The impact of the notification. They were taken by surprise by the contents of the notification, in particular the list of Operations Requiring Natural England’s Consent (ORNECs). SSSI notification is unsuitable for the man-made and actively managed Cotswold Water Park. • Failure of the previous designation. The previously designated site was in unfavourable declining condition, but the enlarged site is in favourable condition. Designation is therefore not necessary or appropriate. • Inappropriateness of ORNEC’s. The requirement to obtain consent for the activities listed in the ORNEC’s is bureaucratic and inflexible, particularly where action is required in an emergency, and puts landowners at risk of legal challenge. • Consideration of alternative options. A voluntary agreement will be more effective than designation. • Injustice of denial of Biodiversity Net Gain. Notification represents a significant financial disadvantage to land managers. • Exercise of discretion under S28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Natural England has discretion as to whether or not to designate.
1.53.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited with Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby on 6 July 2021. Officers wrote to Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby on 28 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that an area of amenity grassland be removed from the SSSI boundary. Officers also wrote to Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby on 31 August 2021 and responded to the remaining concerns raised in their objection, including future development proposals. Lord de Mauley confirmed by telephone on 3 September 2021 that the
Page 70 of 83 recommended boundary modifications and objection response would address their concerns; accordingly, the objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers recommended boundary modifications. He will confirm this in writing.
1.53.3 Scientific justification WeBS data for Lake 118 records the presence of wintering waterfowl including gadwall, wigeon and tufted duck. Chara curta was recorded in the lake in 2014. The area of amenity grassland does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The remaining grounds for objection are covered in sections 1.8 (common grounds for objection) and/or the Burges Salmon objection (section 1.10).
1.53.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objections from Lord de Mauley and George Ponsonby, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude an area of amenity grassland, a total area of 3.18 ha.
1.54 Resolved objection from Conservation Builders Ltd (Lake 63) Will Vicary of Habitat First Group submitted an objection on behalf of Conservation Builders Ltd by email on 12 March 2021. Conservation Builders Ltd are supportive of the notification but raised an objection to the inclusion of a specific area within the SSSI boundary.
1.54.1 Objection Conservation Builders Ltd object to the inclusion of an area of hardstanding, offices and car parking near Lake 63.
1.54.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 4 May 2021 with representatives of the owner. Officers wrote to Conservation Builders Ltd by email 13 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that an area of hardstanding, offices and car parking be removed from the SSSI boundary. Conservation Builders Ltd confirmed by email on 12 August 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address their concerns; accordingly, their objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.54.3 Scientific justification The land in question includes hardstanding, offices and car parking. It does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.54.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Conservation Builders Ltd, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude the area of hardstanding, offices and car parking, a total area of 0.46 ha.
1.55 Resolved Objection from Cotswold District Council Cotswold District Council submitted an objection by email on 16 April 2021. Cotswold District Council is supportive of the enlarged SSSI but raised an objection to the inclusion of a specific area within the SSSI boundary.
1.55.1 Objection Cotswold District Council objects to the inclusion of a small parcel of land within its Packers Leaze depot which is part of its working operations.
Page 71 of 83 1.55.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 20 April 2021 with a representative of Cotswold District Council. Officers wrote to Cotswold District Council by email on 14 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that an area of hardstanding be removed from the SSSI boundary. Cotswold District Council confirmed by email on 22 July 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address its concerns; accordingly, its objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.55.3 Scientific justification The land parcel was as described, being entirely hard standing. However, it is not fenced off from the remainder of the land within the Council’s ownership, which does support interest features. On site it was agreed that the hardstanding will be fenced off. The area of hardstanding does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.55.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Cotswold District Council the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude an area of hardstanding, a total area of 0.48 ha.
1.56 Resolved Objection from Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd (Lake 9) Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd submitted an objection to the notification by email on 3 May 2021.
1.56.1 Objection Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd object to the inclusion of ten areas of land adjacent to Lake 9. These include boat storage, built structures and amenity grassland.
1.56.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 18 May 2021 with representatives of Cotswold Sailing Club. Officers wrote to Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd by email on 2 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that a number of areas be removed from the SSSI boundary. Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd confirmed by email on 3 July 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address its concerns; accordingly, its objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.56.3 Scientific justification The areas recommended for removal do not support interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.56.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude boat storage, built structures and amenity grassland, a total area of 1.99 ha.
1.57 Resolved objection from Cotswold Lakes Trust (Lake 32) Matthew Millett submitted an objection to the notification on behalf of Cotswolds Lakes Trust by email on 28 May 2021.
1.57.1 Objection Matthew Millett objects to the inclusion of two areas within Keynes Country Park (Lake 32). These areas (effectively two blocks) comprise seasonal and permanent parking spaces, a beach café, the beach toilet block, a children’s play area and amenity grassland.
Page 72 of 83 1.57.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 17 June 2021, with the owner’s permission but without their presence. Officers wrote to Matthew Millett by email on 22 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the above areas be removed from the SSSI boundary. Matthew Millett confirmed by email on 19 August 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address the Cotswold Lakes Trust’s concerns; accordingly, their objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.57.3 Scientific justification The land in question includes parking spaces, a café, toilet block, children’s play area and amenity grassland. These areas do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.57.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Matthew Millett of the Cotswold Lakes Trust, the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude parking spaces, a café, toilet block, children’s play area and amenity grassland, a total area of 2.61 ha.
1.58 Resolved Objection from Mr G J and Mrs A Watkins (Lake 77) Mr and Mrs Watkins submitted their objection by email on 3 June 2021.
1.58.1 Objection Mr and Mrs Watkins object to the inclusion of a small strip of their garden (by Lake 77) within the SSSI boundary. The area (133.9 m2) had been acquired from Lower Mill Estate several years previously.
1.58.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 14 June, with Mr and Mrs Watkins. Officers wrote to Mr and Mrs Watkins by email on 20 August 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the small strip of garden be removed from the SSSI boundary. Mrs Watkins confirmed by email on 20 August 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address their concerns; accordingly their objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers‘ recommended boundary modifications.
1.58.3 Scientific justification The strip is clearly well-established garden, including access to a small jetty. It does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.58.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Mr & Mrs Watkins the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the boundary to exclude the garden, and access to a small jetty, a total area of 0.01 ha.
1.59 Resolved Objection from Greatmoor Lakes Ltd (Lake 17) Mr Budd submitted an objection on behalf of Greatmoor Lakes Ltd on 20 April 2021.
1.59.1 Objection Greatmoor Lakes Ltd objects to the inclusion of an area of land leased to Berite Sawmills, two small buildings, an area of cleared development land and 5m of access track.
Page 73 of 83 1.59.2 Consideration of objection Berite Sawmills have also submitted an objection to the notification which covers the leased land. Accordingly this part of Greatmoor Lakes Ltd objection is dealt with under section 1.40. The site was visited on 18 May 2021. Officers wrote to Greatmoor Lakes Ltd by email on 18 May 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that the two buildings, cleared land and 5m of access track be removed from the SSSI boundary. Greatmoor Lakes Ltd confirmed by email on 4 August 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address their concerns; accordingly, their objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.59.3 Scientific justification The two small buildings do not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The 5m of access track is a mapping error. The area of development land was cleared prior to notification and development has started. It does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the boundary.
1.59.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from Greatmoor Lakes Ltd the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to remove two small buildings, 5m of track and the land where development has commenced, a total area of 3.03 ha.
1.60 Resolved Objection from Bowmoor Sailing Club (Lake 125) Mr Whittingham on behalf of Bowmoor Sailing Club submitted an objection on 9 May 2021.
1.60.1 Objection Bowmoor Sailing Club objects to the inclusion of a grass field used for boat storage, camping, caravans and sports. They also expressed concern regarding the impact of designation on the Club’s activities.
1.60.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 14 June 2021. During this visit officers confirmed that Natural England did not intend to curtail the Club’s existing activities. Officers wrote to Bowmoor Sailing Club by email on 13 July 2021 to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made Natural England’s Board that the grass field be removed from the SSSI boundary. Mr Whittingham confirmed by email on 16 July 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications and assurances provided during the site visit would address the Club’s concerns; accordingly their objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.60.3 Scientific justification The field is amenity grassland. It does not support the interest features and therefore does not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.60.4 Officers Recommendation With respect to the objection from Bowmoor Sailing Club the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude a field of amenity grassland; a total area of 2.66 ha.
1.61 Resolved Objection from OO/359 On 2 June 2021, Dan Walker of Aspect Ecology submitted an objection on behalf of a landowner who wishes to remain anonymous. The owner is referred to here by the reference number OO/359.
Page 74 of 83 1.61.1 Objection OO/359 objects to the inclusion of their lakes within the SSSI.
1.61.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 5 July 2021 with the owner and Aspect Ecology. Officers wrote to Mr Walker by email on 17 August to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that areas of built development, garden and plantation woodland be removed from the SSSI boundary. Mr Walker confirmed by email on 1 September 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address his client’s concerns; accordingly, this objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.61.3 Scientific justification Prior to the site visit Aspect Ecology proposed a modification to the SSSI boundary to exclude areas of built development, garden and plantation woodland. WeBS data have not been collected from lakes 109 and 109a since 2011/12. WeBS data up to 2011/12 records the presence of a range of species from the non-breeding assemblage including gadwall and wigeon. Breeding great crested grebe has been recorded. The areas of built development, garden and plantation woodland do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI.
1.61.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from OO/359 the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to remove the areas of built development, garden and plantation woodland; a total area of 2.84 ha.
1.62 Resolved Objection from OO/305
On 11 May 2021, Dan Walker of Aspect Ecology submitted an objection on behalf of a landowner who wishes to remain anonymous. The owner is referred to here by the reference number OO/305.
1.62.1 Objection OO/305 objects to the inclusion of their lakes within the SSSI.
1.62.2 Consideration of objection The site was visited on 5 July 2021 with Aspect Ecology. Officers wrote to Mr Walker by email on 17 August to confirm that following the site visit a recommendation will be made to Natural England’s Board that areas of built development, garden beach and plantation woodland be removed from the SSSI boundary. Mr Walker confirmed by email on 1 September 2021 that the recommended boundary modifications would address his client’s concerns; accordingly, this objection is resolved subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommended boundary modifications.
1.62.3 Scientific justification Prior to the site visit Aspect Ecology proposed a modification to the boundary to exclude areas of built development, garden, planation woodland, open water, beach and two donkey padd ocks. The property was purchased by OO305 two weeks prior to notification. WeBS data have not been collected from the lakes since 2015/16. Prior to 2015/16 small numbers from a wide range of species from the non-breeding assemblage were recorded. Breeding great crested grebe and mute swan have been recorded. The areas of built development, garden, beach and plantation woodland do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The two donkey paddocks have been cleared and fenced post notification, with no notice or consent; these are not considered for
Page 75 of 83 removal from the boundary.
1.62.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the objection from OO/305 the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to remove the areas of built development, garden, beach and plantation woodland; a total area of 1.83 ha.
1.63 Representations An additional 16 representations, 13 of which expressed support for the notification, were received from the following individuals and organisations
1.63.1 Representations expressing support Representation from Ashton Keynes Parish Council Ashton Keynes Parish Council stated that, as a community, they recognised the environmental needs of the area when their Neighbourhood Plan was approved and that the SSSI designation of Cotswold Water Park is entirely consistent with policies expressed in the Neighbourhood Plan. Representation from the Environment Agency The Environment Agency stated that they are pleased to see the wider Cotswold Water Park lake system notified as a SSSI in recognition of its ornithological as well as botanical importance. They expressed their support for the designation and stated their willingness to work with Natural England to meet the SSSI’s objectives. Representation from Lake Pochard Management Limited Stephen Hobden, Managing Director Lake Pochard Management Limited and (the owner of Lake 15) stated that in general Lake Pochard Management Limited feel the SSSI status will be good for the Cotswold Water Park moving forward. Representation from Ecotricity Dr Simon Pickering, Principal Ecologist & Environmental Advisor, Ecotricity said that the designation of Cotswold Water Park was “great news”. Representation from the RSPB David Hampson, Sites Policy Officer stated that the RSPB strongly supports the notification. The RSPB also stated that they felt bittern and garganey qualify as interest features in their own right. They also noted the omission of little grebe from the text describing the breeding bird assemblages in the citation. Representation from Spring Lake Residents Association Spring Lake Residents Association (Lake 14) said they were “very pleased to hear that the SSSI status in the Cotswold Water Park has now been extended” and that the notification was “excellent news”. Representation from Oxfordshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council stated that they support the recognition and protection offered by the SSSI to nationally the important features of the Cotswold Water Park. Representation from Cricklade Court Leet Cricklade Court Leet fully support the SSSI notification and noted it would reduce habitat fragmentation. They would like to see the notification extended to link with North Meadow NNR in due course to reduce future threats to the NNR. They noted the benefits of the notification for the long term boost it will be to the Town’s economy. Representation from Wiltshire Wildlife Trust Wiltshire Wildlife Trust stated that the designation of all of the lakes in the Cotswold Water Park is “excellent news”.
Page 76 of 83 Representation from Cricklade Development Foundation Limited Cricklade Development Foundation Limited stated the notification is excellent news for wildlife and that they envisage it being a great benefit to the local economy. They anticipate the increased size of the SSSI will attract more visits and in turn sustain local businesses and the wider community. Representation from Butterfly Conservation Butterfly Conservation expressed its support for the notification whilst also providing information on the presence of the Brown Hairstreak and Grizzled Skipper butterflies which are both found within the boundary of the SSSI and should be considered for inclusion as special interest features. Representation form Keith Carter Keith Carter stated that he fully supports the extension of the SSSI and asked Natural England to consider a modification to the boundary at Lakes 119 and 122. Representation from Ian Leckenby Ian Leckenby offered his support for the designation and hopes that it moderates future development within the Cotswold Water Park.
1.63.2 Other representations Representation from BASC David Gervers, on behalf of the British Association for Shooting & Conservation wrote to ask that (a) their significant contribution to the creation and maintenance of the Cotswold Water Park area is taken into account during the consultation, and (b) that Natural England engage with them in a way that ensures that shooting activity can continue wherever possible.” Representation from the Carp Society Andrew Ellis, Carp Society (owner) stated that as long as they have confirmation from Natural England that recreational angling will not be affected on any water the Carp Society can’t see a problem. Representation from Cotswold Airport Cotswold Airport advised that if any airspace restriction over the SSSI is proposed, it will have a significant and detrimental effect on aviation and be strongly opposed. 1.63.3 Officers’ recommendation With respect to all neutral and supporting representations the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with a modification to the citation to include little grebe in the description of the breeding bird assemblage.
1.64 Additional area team recommendations
1.64.1 Lake 4, Dr David Williams. A document submitted on 2 November 2020 included a map indicating a mapping error within the then proposed SSSI boundary. A site visit was carried out on 17 August 2021 and identified areas of built development, garden and sheep-grazed pasture which are not of special interest and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSI. The owners are strongly supportive of the SSSI and did not submit an objection to the notification.
1.64.2 Lakes 2a/b/c, Cherry Lakes Fishery. These lakes are in the same block as Lakes 3 and 4 which is subject to an objection. For consistency a site visit was held on 17 August 2021. Areas of built development and amenity grassland which do not support the interest features and therefore do not merit inclusion within the SSSSI were identified. Boundary modifications were discussed on site with the owners who are supportive of notification.
Page 77 of 83 1.64.3 Raised and suspended structures Structures such as bridges, jetties and decking that are raised or suspended (with areas of land or water exposed beneath them) are often excluded from SSSI boundaries by way of a map annotation. That approach is recommended here to clarify the status of certain built structures. The following annotation should be included on the SSSI boundary maps to provide the necessary clarification: “The site excludes raised or suspended structures such as bridges, jetties, landing stages and decking associated with lakeside properties; however, the site does include any exposed land or water beneath the aforementioned structures. Other structures (not raised or suspended) are included in the site as mapped.”
1.64.4 Officers’ recommendation With respect to the additional area team recommendations the Board is recommended to approve confirmation with modifications to the boundary to exclude two areas totalling 3.15 ha and, consequently, with a modification to the area figure on the citation.
1.65 Legal considerations Natural England’s functions in respect of the designation of SSSIs are set out in sections 28 -28D of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended). The statutory provision of particular relevance in this case is section 28C. 1.65.1 Section 28C Section 28C (enlargement) enables an area to be notified as being of special interest which includes an existing area of special interest. Section 28C(1) provides that: “Where Natural England are of the opinion that any area of land which includes, but also extends beyond, a site of special scientific interest (“the SSSI”) is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features, Natural England may decide to notify that fact.” To summarise, a notification under section 28C may be given where Natural England is of the opinion that an area of land is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features and that area includes, but extends beyond, an existing site of special scientific interest. A notification under section 28C may identify different features by reason of which the larger area is of special interest; it may also identify different operations that appear likely in Natural England’s view to damage the features by reason of which the area is of special interest; and it may contain a different statement of Natural England’s views about the management of the land. Section 28C appears to give Natural England a discretion as to whether it notifies the area or not. Natural England has sought Leading Counsel’s advice on the scope of its discretion around SSSI confirmation decisions. The advice is clear that there is in effect no discretion if the Board is of the opinion that the site is of special interest. 1.65.2 General legislative duties In reaching its decision the Board must also have regard to Natural England’s other more general legislative duties; these are set out in detail in the legal annex (appendix 1 to this report) . 1.65.3 Socio-economic factors Natural England has taken Leading Counsel’s advice on the scope it has to take account of socio - economic issues and the weight, if any, that should be attached to them as part of the designation process. The advice may be summarised as follows: (1) There are four elements to the designation process which the Board must consider: (i) whether the land is of special interest; (ii) the specification of the features by which the site is of special interest;
Page 78 of 83 (iii) the specification of those operations likely to damage the features; and (iv) the statement of Natural England’s views about the management of the land. (2) The main question for the Board is a scientific one. The Board must be satisfied that the area of land notified is of special interest. If the Board is of that opinion, having heard the scientific case for notification, it has a duty to confirm the notification of that area as a SSSI. Counsel’s advice is absolutely clear on this and points out that if Parliament had intended to confer a discretion on Natural England to withdraw a notification because it was undesirable given its consequences then Parliament could have chosen to do that but it did not. In the absence of any such discretion the scope to withdraw the notification is limited to where the Board is of the opinion that the area notified is not of special interest. (3) The Board may not withdraw the notification if they remain of the opinion that the area, or any part of it, is of special interest. (4) If it is not open to the Board to withdraw the notification because it is satisfied that the site is of special interest then the only other decision open to it is to confirm the notification with or without modification. In doing so the Board must consider each of the four elements of the notification in the light of any objections, representations or further information that has become available in addition to the information available at the time of the initial notification. (5) In considering whether to confirm the specification of any operations likely to damage the special features, Natural England has to decide whether or not such operations are likely to damage those features and to confirm the list with or without modification. The list should be specific and relevant to the site. However where, as here, there is a large site it is recognised that not all the operations have to apply to every part of the site. The specification of the operations may engage a person’s rights under the European Convention on F undamental Rights and Freedoms but in Counsel’s opinion the statutory regime which requires a person to apply for consent before carrying out an operation allows a fair balance to be struck, at that point, between likely harm to the nature conservation interests and any likely detriment to the owner/occupier. This coupled with the fact there is a right of appeal if consent is not granted means the regime is not disproportionate and does not infringe the owner/occupiers human right to quiet enjoyment of their possessions. (6) When considering whether to confirm the views on management Natural England should seek to promote its general purpose whilst having regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity (as required by section 40 of the NERC Act) and giving such regard as it considers appropriate in all the circumstances to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the social and economic interests of any rural area (in accordance with section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968).
1.65.4 Human rights In determining whether or not to confirm the notification of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI, those affected may raise questions about the impact of the designation on their human rights. Counsel has advised that the notification of the fact that Natural England is of the opinion that an area is of special interest does not, of itself, interfere with a landowner’s peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and therefore is not contrary to their human rights. From a procedural perspective, the obligation is to undertake a fair and public hearing in determination of the civil rights and obligations of all of the owners and occupiers of this area of land. The courts have endorsed Natural England’s approach to designation largely because of the rigorous and comprehensive approach it takes to the designation process. The case law tells us that the Board Member’s role is to consider all the evidence in a fair and open-minded way. The process requires:
Page 79 of 83 “investigation, consultation and the consideration and analysis of objections. Any suggestion that remaining of the same opinion involves no expenditure of physical or intellectual energy, or that confirmation is an automatic rubber stamp, is plainly wrong.” 10 It is therefore important, to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with human rights requirements, that proper consideration is given to all the evidence and all the objections and representations that have been made.
1.66 SSSI which the Board is recommended to confirm The SSSI notification that the Board is considering for confirmation is the subject of 54 objections, 43 of which remain unresolved and 11 of which are resolved, subject to the Board agreeing the officers’ recommendations. The SSSI notification is also the subject of 16 additional representations, 13 of which support the notification. With respect to: • the resolved objections from Lord de Mauley, George Ponsonby, Conservation Builders Ltd, Cotswold District Council, Cotswold Sailing Club Ltd, Cotswold Lakes Trust, Mr G J and Mrs A Watkins, Greatmoor Lakes Ltd, Bowmoor Sailing Club, anonymous owner OO/359 and anonymous owner OO/305; • the unresolved objections from Hills Quarry Products/Hills UK Ltd, Moreton C. Cullimore (Gravels) Limited, Mr A Lindley, The Trustees of the William Oliver Clarke Trust, Mr B Knight, Ms G Smith and Mr S Swiokla, Cotswold Water Park Hire Ltd, Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd, Whitefriars Sailing Club, Cirencester Water Ski, Mr B Ellison, Keuka Waterski, Mrs A Scott, Coln Park LLP/Lakes by Yoo, Mr B Sparkes and Mr L Sparkes, Mr S Ward, Berite Sawmills, Wildmoor Waters and The Willows, Aggregate Industries UK Limited, Mr E Keyser and Mr N Keyser, the Lower Mill Estate Ltd and the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust; • the representation from the RSPB; and • the additional area team recommendations; officers recommend that the Board approves confirmation with modifications to the SSSI boundary to exclude 52 areas of land totalling 168.81 ha, to the boundary maps to clarify that raised and suspended structures (such as jetties) are excluded, and the citation (to amend the area figure as a result of the boundary modifications and to include little grebe within the text describing the breeding bird assemblages). The recommended confirmed area of the SSSI is 1,906 ha; With respect to: • the unresolved objections from the Ministry of Defence, Cotswold Waters Limited, Mr A K Bowley, Aspen Lake Ltd, Breedon Group, Mr M Thomas (Watermark Ltd), Mr J E & Mrs S J Seeds, Mr J F & Mrs S F Ellis, Mr N C & Mrs A Dorricott, Pinnacle Trustees Ltd, Mr R D James, Mr Ross F Baker (Ross Manufacturing Ltd), Mr T Bankes, Grasshopper Trading Limited, Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises, B J & C E Ford, Emerald Development & Consulting, British Aggregates Association, Land and Mineral Management, Cotswold Canals Trust and its supporters and The Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP. • all other neutral and supporting representations; officers recommend that the Board approves the confirmation without modification. The grounds for the objections and officers’ recommendations in light of them, as well as the additional area team recommendations, concern modifications to the site boundary (and the area figure on the citation). Accordingly, officers recommend that the Board approves the confirmation without modification of the other matters specified in the SSSI notification (see pages13-17 of the notification document in section 2 of this report), specifically:
10 Per Wall LJ in R(Fisher) v English Nature
Page 80 of 83 • the ‘reasons for notification’ listed in the citation; • the list of operations requiring Natural England’s consent; and • the statement of Natural England’s views about the management of the SSSI. The Board is recommended to approve confirmation of the notification of Cotswold Water Park SSSI with modifications to the SSSI boundary, maps and citation.
Page 81 of 83 Appendix 1 – Legal Annex Other legislative requirements: There are a number of general duties and a general purpose that must be considered and taken account of as part of the designation process. Section 2 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) sets out Natural England’s general purpose: “(1) Natural England’s general purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.” Section 33 NERC Act states Natural England: “...must have regard to actual or possible ecological changes, and the desirability of contributing to sustainable development”. Section 40 NERC Act states that Natural England must: “must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with a proper exercise of those functions to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. ....Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat.” Section 37 Countryside Act 1968: “...it shall be the duty of Natural England to have due regard to the needs to agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interest of rural areas”. Natural England has taken advice on the weight that should be given to these general provisions. Counsel has advised that effect can only be given to such general provisions if, and to the extent that, doing so is compatible with the specific legislation dealing with such areas. Section 108 Deregulation Act 2015 (so-called ‘growth duty’): “A person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies must, in the exercise of the function, have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.” The growth duty is a relatively new duty that only took effect on 29 March 2017. As such there is no case law regarding the breadth of its application however we are satisfied that Counsel’s Advice on the general duties would apply equally to the growth duty, i.e. effect can only be given to such general provisions to the extent that doing so is compatible with the specific legislation dealing with such areas. Further NE has always been of the view, a view that is supported by the case law, that notification in and of itself is not a regulatory function. It is merely the notification of an opinion which, having formed that opinion, we are required to do. Regulatory functions may flow from that, e.g. with respect to the consenting regime where having regard to economic growth may form part of the deliberations on whether consent should be granted, but notification is not of itself a regulatory function. The Decision: The issue to be deliberated is a scientific one based on all the evidence. Parliament has not conferred on Natural England a discretion to withdraw a notification simply because it has undesirable consequences or because it may have socio-economic impacts. Natural England is only required, during the designation process, to consider whether a case has been made that a site is of such sufficient interest that it should be designated. Regard may be had to opinions expressed by those objecting to confirmation and to those who support it, including officers. The weight to be put on those objections and representations is a matter for the Board. In reaching your decision you should act fairly and be satisfied that an opportunity has been given to make representations to you on the rights that are being affected.
Page 82 of 83 If you are minded to confirm the SSSI, in specifying the operations requiring consent you should seek to ensure that operations are described in no more an extensive way than is required to protect the special interest at this site. Guidance: It is the Board’s policy to have regard to and place significant weight upon the JNCC guidelines when reaching a decision on the existence of a special interest. Whilst the Board should not be constrained by the guidelines and may depart from them if it feels it is appropriate and reasonable to do so, if the Board decides to depart from them there must be good reason for doing so. Procedural aspects: You must satisfy yourselves that the procedural safeguards have been properly carried out i.e. • that there has been appropriate consultation with owners and occupiers and that they have been given at least three months to make their objections; • that the owners/occupiers have been given details of the scientific evidence; and • that objectors have been given the opportunity to emphasise their objections at the Board. Scope of powers: You can either: (i) withdraw the notification; or (ii) confirm the notification (with or without modification). Should you choose to confirm then there are a number of further decisions that you must make: • whether to remove land from the area proposed; • whether to revise the citation and remove features; • whether to revise the operations requiring Natural England’s consent to make them less onerous; and • whether to revise the views about management statement. You cannot however: • add land to the site; or • add any operations which would make the list of operations requiring Natural England’s consent more onerous.
Page 83 of 83