A MEETING OF THE BROADS (2006) INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD WAS HELD AT THE SUTTON STAITHE HOTEL, SUTTON, STALHAM, NORFOLK ON MONDAY 18 MAY 2015 AT 10.00 AM.
Elected Members Appointed Members * H J Alston Broadland D C L E Baugh Ms A Cassam * J Burton * A Mallett * R Buxton J Pettman * H G Cator OBE * Mrs B Rix * J W Chapman N Shaw * S G Daniels D Ward * J Deane * G D Gay North Norfolk D C * M Harris * Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett * K Hart * Mrs P Grove-Jones I Robinson W Northam * F Sharman R C Price * M Smart * R Shepherd T P Strudwick N Smith * J G Tallowin R Stevens * E Wharton P Williams * J W K Withers * S D Wright Great Yarmouth B C * Mrs M Coleman B Cunniffe J Shrimplin D Thompson MBE T Wainwright Mrs S Weymouth
* Present (56%)
Mr H G Cator in the Chair
In attendance:
Mr P J Camamile (Chief Executive), Mr A Goose (Operations Manager), Mr G Bloomfield (Catchment Engineer) and Mrs M Creasy (minutes)
ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
24/15 FUNDING FOR RURAL SUDS
24/15/01 Mr Neil Punchard, Broadland Catchment Partnership attended to give a presentation about funding the Broadland Catchment Partnership had secured from Defra’s Catchment Partnership Action Fund, for projects in 2015/16 that would help to improve 1 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
WFD water body status and for the construction and promotion of rural sustainable drainage schemes, (SuDS) in less productive, marginal areas of arable fields. Applications from interested landowners for grant funding for such schemes were required by August 2015.
24/15/02 The Chairman thanked Mr Punchard for his presentation and Mr Punchard left the meeting.
25/15 APOLOGIES
25/15/01 Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Messrs L Baugh, W Northam, J Pettman, R Price, I Robinson, N Shaw, N Smith, R Stevens, T Strudwick, D Thompson, T Wainwright, D Ward, P Williams and Mrs S Weymouth.
26/15 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
26/15/01 Mr M Harris declared an interest in respect of the payment reported in the Broads (2006) IDB Schedule of Paid Accounts and paid to him for pump maintenance. RESOLVED that this be noted.
26/15/02 Mr A Goose, Operations Manager declared an interest in respect of the payments to B Goose and B Goose & Partners reported in the Broads (2006) IDB Schedule of Paid Accounts, due to the family relationship between himself and Mr B Goose. RESOLVED that this be noted.
26/15/03 Mr S G Daniels as a member of the Windmills Trust, declared an interest in the Operations Report item on Stracey Arms Windmill access improvements sought by the Windmills Trust. RESOLVED that this be noted.
27/15 MINUTES OF THE LAST BOARD MEETING
27/15/01 The minutes of the last Board meeting held on 26 January 2015 were approved and signed as a true record.
28/15 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
28/15/01 Potter Heigham Middle Wall (05/15/03)
Mr K Hart reported that the EA used the access track along Potter Heigham Middle Wall and were currently obtaining quotes for its repair. The Catchment Engineer reported that the retiring District Engineer had spoken with the Parish Council and understood that the issue of funding for repair to the track had been resolved. RESOLVED that this be noted.
2 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
28/15/02 Precept Charges (05/15/04)
The Chief Executive reported that to date he had not had received any update from the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC about how the IDB precept charges would be used. It was agreed to wait for receipt of the Board’s Highland Water Claim following the introduction of a new procedural note for the payment of these claims, before chasing for details of IDB precept spend. RESOLVED that this be noted.
28/15/03 Broadland Flood Alleviation Works – Bank Strengthening Works Outstanding on River Ant Upstream of Barton (06/15/06)
The Chief Executive would follow up the possibility of the IDB PJC undertaking these works, (which fell outside the main BESL Broadland Flood Alleviation Contract), under a PSCA with EA funding. RESOLVED that this be noted.
28/15/04 Planning: Potential Development, Hemsby (07/15/02)
Mr S G Daniels recorded that he would keep the Catchment SGD/GB Engineer updated with news of this development should anything further be forthcoming so that any impact of surface water drainage on the Board’s system could be established. RESOLVED that this be noted.
28/15/05 Poors Trust (10/15/09)
Mr J Burton reported that Essex and Suffolk Water were hoping to establish a new Catchment Agreement for water levels on the Trinities Broads. This may help to alleviate some of the conservation issues on the Muckfleet that had been raised by the Poors Trust. RESOLVED that this be noted.
28/15/06 Former Quirk Depot, Martham (17/15/02)
The Chief Executive reported that he expected contracts to be exchanged in early June 2015 for the Board’s purchase of the depot at Martham. The agreed purchase price had been negotiated down to £155k. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15 OPERATIONS REPORT
29/15/01 The Operations Report was considered in detail and approved (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book). Arising therefrom:
29/15/02 Cantley Pumping Station – Access Road (A2)
The Catchment Engineer would discuss with Tim Strudwick, RSPB GB/TS the increased risk in using the access road to Cantley pumping station due to the high water levels covering the road. RESOLVED
3 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
that this be noted.
29/15/03 Sutton Pumping Station (A2)
The Catchment Engineer reported that Sutton pump had failed and a temporary pump had been put in place pending repairs. Options appraisal for a replacement pump was ongoing as a matter of urgency although the Catchment Engineer reported that the current EA people and property benefits ratio meant that FDGiA may not be awarded. It was considered that this could have huge implications given the increased costs of pump replacement arising from compliance with the eel and fish regulations and whilst historically the EA had awarded 100% grant funding for costs arising from regulatory obligations, the number of sites affected nationally may make the cost of funding in the future prohibitive for the EA. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/04 Plant (A2)
Two new Hyundai 360 14 tonne excavators, (as approved at the Board meeting on 20 October 2014), had been delivered and were operational. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/05 Mautby Pumping Station (A4)
The Catchment Engineer reported that works were in progress to GB facilitate the removal of the pump gearbox and also ground raising works behind the flood bank. Members considered that the works should be completed as soon as practically possible. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/06 Repps Pumping Station Automatic Weedscreen (A4)
The Catchment Officer reported that discussions between BESL and NCC Highways were still ongoing concerning the soke dyke at Staithe Road, the location of which would need to be considered when deciding the location of the weedscreen.
29/15/07 Brograve Catchment: Bridges Replacement (A4)
Members considered that in view of the EA’s decision not to award GB/PJC grant aid for the replacement of old bridges in the Brograve Catchment, the Board would need to establish ownership/responsibility for these as soon as possible. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/08 Muckfleet Main Drain (A4)
Members considered the geotechnical, asset and level surveys GB already undertaken on the Muckfleet Main Drain bank and that the environmental survey looking at both vegetation and protected species was underway. It was agreed and thereby RESOLVED to proceed as soon as possible with the preparation of a Project
4 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
Appraisal Report (PAR) looking at funding of various engineering options for the repair of the damaged bank.
29/15/09 Toxic Algae (Prymnesium) Outbreak in Upper Thurne (A5)
The Catchment Engineer reported on the assistance provided from the Board’s Officers to the EA in response to the major fish kill arising from the presence of toxic algae bloom in the Thurne Catchment. NE had been advised of the temporary deviation from the normal operating protocol under the Habitats Regulations due to the required emergency response to save as many fish as possible. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/10 Members considered the newspaper article that had inaccurately PJC reported that the major fish kill incident had been caused by the IDB and how the Catchment Engineer had taken the opportunity at a later Broads Forum meeting to highlight that this was in fact, not the case. It was agreed that it would be appropriate to have a PR plan in place to avoid any future misrepresentation in the media. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/11 Stracey Arms Windmill Access Improvements (A5)
Members considered the proposal for the Board to infill a small GB section of ditch to enable safer passage for highway improvements to this site of the historic windmill structure owned by the Windmills Trust. Due to past problems caused by the ditch preventing access to the Board’s main drain feeding water into the Halvergate system, it was considered that infilling this section of ditch would be beneficial to both the Board as well as the Windmills Trust. It was therefore agreed that subject to due diligence, the Board would undertake the works to infill the ditch and would bear the cost of these works, estimated at £2,500, which would support the Windmills Trust application for match funding for the highways improvements via a heritage funding bid. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/12 Complaints (A8)
Members considered the complaint received from a local resident whose property was accessed via the Mautby pumping station track. The track was frequently used by farm machinery and lorry plant and had subsequently deteriorated to such a state as to cause damage to the resident’s cars.
29/15/13 At this point Mr G Gay declared an interest as a landowner in the area local to Mautby pumping station. Mr E Wharton declared an interest due to his association with C Wharton Ltd, who was one of the main users of the track in question.
29/15/14 It was agreed that Messrs G Gay and E Wharton would meet with GB/GDG/ the resident to discuss contributions to repairs of the track and that EW the Board would contribute by giving the Catchment Officer’s time
5 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
to participate in these discussions. RESOLVED that this be noted.
29/15/15 Halvergate Water Level Management Plan
The Catchment Engineer reported on the potential opportunity to attract EU funding through partnership working and would update the Board as this progressed. RESOLVED that this be noted.
30/15 HEALTH AND SAFETY
30/15/01 The Health and Safety Report included within the Operations Report, was considered in detail and approved, (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book). Arising therefrom:
30/15/02 There were no reportable incidents during this reporting period. RESOLVED that this be noted.
30/15/03 Following the introduction of new CDM regulations in April 2015, GB/MC training would be organised through the Board’s Health and Safety Consultant for relevant officers. RESOLVED that this be noted.
31/15 PLANNING
31/15/01 The Planning Report included within the Operations Report was considered in detail and approved, (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book). Arising therefrom:
31/15/02 The Chief Executive reported that new planning policy legislation effective from April 2015 made the Lead Local Flood Authorities statutory consultees for all SUDs applications. RESOLVED that this be noted.
32/15 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
32/15/01 The Environmental Report was considered in detail and approved, (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book). Arising therefrom:
32/15/02 Toxic Algal Bloom in Upper Thurne
The Catchment Engineer reported that the IDB’s emergency response to this incident had saved very significant numbers of fish and that the EA Technical Specialist for Fisheries had commended the way IDB Officers and Operatives had dealt with the situation. RESOLVED that this be noted.
32/15/03 New Water Vole Class Licence System – Update
The Chief Executive reported that at the present time NE did not ADA accept the legal opinion commissioned from Penny Smith, Freeths concerning the displacement of water voles and that ADA was
6 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
continuing to work with NE, ecologists and IDBs to determine a way forward. RESOLVED that this be noted.
32/15/04 Eel Monitoring
It was proposed that the IDB should share its findings from the eel monitoring at Stokesby to highlight the success of this system. RESOLVED that this be noted.
32/15/05 Muckfleet Structure
Mr J Burton reported that the unauthorised lowering of the Muckfleet sluice by persons unknown during April was detrimental to Essex and Suffolk Water’s (E&SW) efforts to meet its obligations since the water levels were critical to this. Mr Burton was, however, concerned with how this matter had been reported to the IDB and was taking steps internally within E&SW to deal with this.
33/15 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 2014/15
33/15/01 The Internal Audit Report for 2014/15 including the one observation and three recommendations as prepared by the Board’s Internal Auditor, (King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Internal Audit Services), together with the Chief Executive’s responses and completion dates, (copies of which are filed in the Report Book), were considered in detail and approved. Arising therefrom:
33/15/02 The Internal Auditor’s focus on rating collection procedures was noted.
33/15/03 The substantial level of assurance awarded on conclusion of the internal audit was noted.
34/15 APPOINTMENT OF INTERNAL AUDITOR FOR 2015/16
34/15/01 It was agreed and thereby RESOLVED to approve the re- appointment of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council’s Internal Audit Service to undertake the Board’s Internal Audit for 2015/16.
35/15 FINANCIAL REPORT 2014/15
35/15/01 The Financial Report for the year ending 31 March 2015 was considered in detail and approved (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book). There were no matters arising.
36/15 ANNUAL RETURN YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 2015
7 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
36/15/01 The Accounting Statements shown in Section 1 of the Board’s Annual Return for the year ended 31 March 2015 were considered in detail and approved.
36/15/02 The Annual Governance Statement shown in Section 2 of the Board’s Annual Return for the year ended 31 March 2015 was considered in detail and approved.
36/15/03 The Annual Internal Audit Report shown in Section 4 of the Board’s Annual Return for the year ended 31 March 2015 was considered in detail and approved.
37/15 LOCAL AUDIT FRAMEWORK
37/15/01 The Chief Executive reported that following the closure of the Audit PJC Commission and the introduction of the new Local Audit Framework from 1 April 2015 the Board’s system of Internal Control had been reviewed. Recommendations for minor changes to the Board’s Financial Regulations would subsequently be brought to the next Board meeting for consideration. RESOLVED that this be noted.
38/15 SCHEDULE OF PAID ACCOUNTS
38/15/01 The Schedule of Paid Accounts for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2015, totalling £361,796.76, (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book), was considered in detail and approved. There were no matters arising.
39/15 MATERIAL CHANGES TO RISK REGISTER
39/15/01 Members considered the risk register for those risks with a matrix risk score of ≥ 6. Arising therefrom:
39/15/02 It was agreed that Habitats Regulations Risk Assessments that had PJC been agreed and in force should be re-communicated to relevant landowners to make them aware of the agreed water levels. This would be included in the action plan supporting key controls of working with Statutory Bodies to comply with WFD to reduce the risk of operations works being constrained by WFD requirements. RESOLVED that this be noted.
39/15/03 It was agreed that the risk score allocated to the risk of the Board PJC being unable to take on additional works due to resource issues should include a trend arrow to show the risk decreasing following the restructure of the WMA Eastern Boards. RESOLVED that this be noted.
8 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
40/15 MANAGEMENT OF UNREASONABLE COMPLAINANT BEHAVIOUR POLICY
40/15/01 The Policy on the management of unreasonable complainant behaviour, (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book), was considered in detail and approved.
41/15 TELEMETRY OUTSTATION TRIENNIAL REVIEW
41/15/01 Members considered the rental terms for the Thunder Hill telemetry outstation and Somerton Auxiliary Pump site, which were due for renewal on 1 August 2015. Arising therefrom:
41/15/02 It was agreed and thereby RESOLVED to approve a 1.3% increase, (in line with the October 2014 RPI on which the Board’s Estimates were based), to the rental terms for the three year period 1 August 2015 to 31 July 2018.
42/15 CORRESPONDENCE
42/15/01 Members considered correspondence, (a copy of which is filed in the Report Book), sent to the Chairman from Wilson Wraight Agricultural Management Consultants concerning the high water levels in the Somerton Catchment and the detrimental effect of these on their client’s land, including a request for an immediate reduction in the water levels.
42/15/02 Members referred to the Somerton Water Level Management Plan Review undertaken by OHES on behalf of the IDB with 100% grant funding, which had been completed in July 2014 following the issues encountered by the IDB in October 2013 when water levels had been lowered, resulting in IDB Members and Officers receiving a reprimand from NE and the EA together with mandatory training on the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and WFD.
42/15/03 The Somerton Water Level Management Plan Review had GB subsequently been discussed between the relevant parties and the water levels determined and agreed. The consensus was, therefore, that it was not possible for the Board to change the water levels at the present time, particularly in view of the findings recorded in 7.2 of the Review. It was, however, agreed to arrange a meeting with Wilson Wraight and their client to explain the situation and go through the WLMP, and to invite NE to also attend this meeting to explain the legislative constraints. RESOLVED that this be noted.
43/15 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
43/15/01 The next meeting of the Board would take place on Monday 27 July 2015 at 10.00am at the Sutton Staithe Hotel.
9 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
44/15 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
44/15/01 There was no other business to discuss.
45/15 CONSORTIUM MATTERS
45/15/01 The unconfirmed minutes of the last Consortium Management Committee meeting held on 27 March 2015 were considered in detail and approved. Arising therefrom:
45/15/02 Surface Water Development Contribution Rate (SWDC) 2015/16 (10/15/06)
It was agreed and thereby RESOLVED to approve the Consortium Management Committee recommendation of an increase in the rate of contribution per impermeable hectare payable by developers from £72,500 to £74,000 for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016.
45/15/03 The Chief Executive reported that following a challenge from ADA’s Technical and Environmental Committee on the legality of the methodology used in the WMA calculation of the SWDC, he had taken legal advice on the report on which the calculations are based and the legal opinion had confirmed this to be entirely legal. RESOLVED that this be noted.
45/15/04 Inflationary Pay Increase 2015/16 (11/15/02)
It was agreed and thereby RESOLVED to approve the Consortium Management Committee recommendation to award an inflationary increase of 1% to salaries and wages for Broads (2006) IDB direct employees with effect from 1 April 2015.
45/15/05 Essential User Travelling Allowance 2015/16 (11/15/03)
It was agreed and thereby RESOLVED to approve the Consortium Management Committee recommendation to retain the existing 2014/15 essential user travelling allowance lump sum rates for the 2015/16 financial year payable to direct employees, together with the prevailing HMRC mileage rates.
45/15/06 ADA Eastern Branch (14/15/01)
Mr H G Cator reported that he was actively encouraging a meeting of the ADA Eastern Branch to ensure that local issues could be fed back to the ADA Executive. RESOLVED that this be noted.
45/15/07 Schedule of Paid Accounts
10 ID Broads (2006) IDB, Minute Action
The Schedule of Paid Accounts for the period 1 December 2014 to 28 February 2015, totalling £121,744.94 as approved at the Consortium Management Committee meeting on 27 March 2015, was considered in detail and adopted. There were no matters arising
45/15/08 Financial Report
The Financial Report for the period 1 April 2014 to 28 February 2015, as approved at the Consortium Management Committee meeting on 27 March 2015, was considered in detail and adopted by the Board. There were no matters arising.
45/15/09 Issues for discussion at the next CMC meeting
There were no specific issues raised by members that would require discussion at the next Consortium Management Committee meeting on 26 June 2015.
46/15 CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
46/15/01 There was no confidential business to discuss.
11
BROADS (2006) INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD
OPERATIONS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY TO MAY 2015
A: OPERATIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD:
1. REVENUE MAINTENANCE WORKS Works have been undertaken on Board main drains in these catchments: Brograve Level Halvergate Heigham Holmes Hempstead Hermitage Hickling Martham Sutton Upton Winterton Dilham Chapelfield Muckfleet
2. PUMPING STATIONS Minor maintenance in the form of weed strimming, roof tile replacement, gutter repairs, handrails, signs etc carried out to pumping stations as required. Servicing in hand. Land D rainage Operative carries out these duties, amongst others, including some electrical works, and assisting telemetry contractor in various tasks. Pumps set to higher summer level since beginning April.
HAPPISBURGH TO WINTERTON DISTRICT
1. Brograve: (3 No. Pumps) No major problems reported.
2. Horsey: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
3. Somerton South: (2 No. Pumps) No major problems reported.
4. Somerton North: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
5. Somerton Auxiliary: (1 No. Submersible) No major problems reported. Pump set to manual override for the last 3 weeks as part of a co-ordinated emergency response to save hundreds of thousands of fish. See operational matters for detail.
LOWER BURE FLEET & ACLE MARSHES DISTRICT
1. Tunstall Pump: (2 No. Pumps) No major problems reported.
2. Five Mile Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
3. Ashtree Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
4. Breydon Pumping Station: (2 No. Pumps) No major problems reported.
5. Berney Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
6. Seven Mile Pumping Station: (2 No. Pumps) No major problems reported.
7. Stracey Arms Freshwater Intake Works: (Automatic inlet penstock) No problems with Intake mechanism reported. Land Drainage Operative & OTT completed the transfer of existing equipment onto the new system. Structure has been in use since February supplementing Halvergate watercourse levels.
LOWER YARE FIRST DISTRICT
1. Buckenham Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
2. Postwick Pumping Station; (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. Broadland Project improving defences to pump and access ongoing.
LOWER YARE FOURTH DISTRICT
1. Cantley Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. Operations Manager reports the road is increasingly unsafe to use due to high water levels covering access road. Situation is under investigation and in the meantime a Task Specific Risk Assessment will be undertaken pending acceptable outcome with Landowner.
MIDDLE BURE DISTRICT
1. The Doles Pumping Station: (3 No. Pumps) No major problems reported.
2. Hermitage Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. Before sale of land to adjacent landowner can proceed, proof of IDB ownership required, now confirmed, sale to be negotiated.
MUCKFLEET & SOUTH FLEGG DISTRICT
1. Stokesby Pumping Station: (2 No. Pumps - Archimedes Screw Pumps) No major problems reported. Eel installation running for elver migration
2. Mautby Pumping Station: (2 No. Pumps - Archimedes Screw Pumps) No major problems reported. Access agreed to cut the hedge back to enable better access to the pump, concrete access road in very poor condition see formal complaint reported in Complaints section.
REPPS MARTHAM & THURNE DISTRICT
1. Martham Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. Some issues regarding route of public footpath, discussions with landowners and NCC footpaths officers.
2. Repps Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. UK Power Networks propose to relocate overhead cables underground along floodwall, some discussions regarding Board interests.
3. Thurne Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
SMALLBURGH DISTRICT
1. Hickling
a) Stubb Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
b) Eastfield Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. Weed screen cleaner installation completed and under commissioning.
Catfield Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
Martham Heigham Holmes Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
Potter Heigham Pumping Station: (2 No. Pumps) No major problems reported.
Horsefen Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
Ludham Bridge North Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
Ludham Bridge South Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
St Benet’s Pumping Station. (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. Redundant Submersible pump has been removed as part of the capital works scheme.
Horning Grove Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
Irstead Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
Sutton Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) The pump is no longer working as a result of seal failure allowing water into motor case. Wall panel has burnt out also. Emergency response was under taken by Operations Manager and Land Drainage Operative; temporary pumping now in place. Structure approaching end of useful life and is within MTP for replacement this year. Options appraisal underway as a matter of urgency.
Chapelfield Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. Minor damage to security fencing as a result of ground bearing pressure failure remedial repairs required.
Wayford Bridge Pumping Station: (1 No. Pump) No major problems reported.
East Ruston: (Tonnage Bridge Pumping Station – 1 No. Pump) No major problems reported. UK Power can upgrade power supply with a transformer for approx £15,000. This will allow an increase in the capacity of the pump from 200 litres/sec to 350 litres/sec. The works may be grant eligible if it forms part of the ‘undergrounding’ of overhead cables. The problem remains regarding the integrity of the canal banks – see Operational Matters below.
3. PLANT The 2 new yellow Hyundai 360 14 tonnes have arrived. The operators are reporting positive feedback including very impressive operating responsiveness, reduction in sound from the engines and improved fuel efficiencies.
4. CAPITAL WORKS Mautby Pumping Station Improvements (funded from Caister housing development contributions): Enabling works have been completed to install piled foundation to support the required lifting beam to enable pump gear box removal. Ground raising works behind the flood bank has also commenced. Works to lifting beam and relocating doors yet to be progressed.
St Benet's Improvements - £76k = 100%. Pumping station commissioned. The EA have approved additional costs of £14k for the refurbishment of the KSB-type pump which has been sent to Germany of repairs.
Tonnage Bridge Pumping Station Automatic Weedscreen (47% of £89,732.50). Works in hand, weedscreen cleaner fabricated, civil ground works are being carried out by machine operator Peter Butler and DC Hunt Engineers ahead of the screen installation. During this period works have been delayed
further as a result of the manufacturer CW Engineering going into administration. However Tony Goodwin & DC Hunt Engineers successfully negotiated the release of the weed screen cleaner and supporting design & installation details from CW’s administrator.
Schemes for 2014/15: Project Appraisals and grant applications to be submitted:
Repps Pumping Station Automatic Weedscreen - this is still dependent upon BESL proposals for soke dyke at Staithe Road. Discussions with NCC re relocation of culvert under Staithe Road. Delayed until 2015/16.
Brograve Catchment Bridge Replacements – some of the old bridges crossing IDB main drains in need of repair/replacement with culverts. Project Report submitted for 100% grant but was turned down due to the likely double accounting of limited cost/ benefit from pending wider Brograve programme of works. Decision required by the Board - whether to fund urgent bridge replacements out of maintenance and reserves.
Muckfleet Main Drain –Asset & level survey works completed. Geotechnical survey completed, unfortunately carried out in wet weather, causing some damage to tracks, can be rectified. Environmental baseline surveys ongoing primarily due to cold spring. Engineering options appraisal nears completion. Decision required by the Board: on the recommendation for agreement in principle to prepare the required Project Appraisal Report (PAR) to understand funding implications of the various options.
Halvergate Officers met onsite with the RSPB in February to discuss developing the project to extend The Fleet into the North eastern area of the Halvergate Marshes. Discussions with landowners have been undertaken by RSPB and WMA staff and there is agreement in principle for a new route for the diversion of the Fleet.
Broads IDB Officers are developing the required Project Appraisal Report (PAR) to apply for Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGIA) at 100% rate through the Environment Agency for submission in July. In addition there is the opportunity for the Broads IDB to support the RSPB in an EU project submission to attract additional European funds to the project. Officers have also had a discussion with the Broads Authority to see if the Halvergate and Brograve projects could form part of a broader EU funding proposal around the theme of Broadland Landscape. If successful there is the potential use EU match funding at Halvergate to undertake works at Brograve provided all partners were in an EU submission together.
There is a Broads partnership meeting on the 22nd of May and an RSPB partnership funding meeting afterwards to discuss these outline proposals in more detail. An update on these EU proposals will be presented to the Board in August.
BROGRAVE PARTNERSHIP- Hempstead Marshes Trail Telemetry monitoring ongoing although again the test site has been challenged again by significantly below average rainfall for the period that will make interpretation of the data challenging. Graph 1 below shows the response of
Drains 1, 2, & 3 over the period from January to April 2015. The new drain 1 (Red line) is showing a further reduction in conductivity readings towards 7.5mS. On the face of it this is very encouraging however the control Drain 2 (orange line) has also followed a similar trend over this period that is not easily explained. The incremental raising of water levels in drain 3 (Teal line) so far has not yielded a noticeable difference in conductivity reading. This can be attributed primarily to low rainfall preventing a head of wall to be gained behind the damboards over this period. You will note there is a noticeable reduction in conductivity after rainfall causing local dilution although the benefit is short lived.
Other observations over this period show that although the new drain 1(photo A) has been constructed at a much shallower depth, there has still been a prolific release of ochre into the system. This could simply be down to the delay caused by the excavation July 2014 or down to the fact that the ochrous forming layer has not been fully drowned out enabling the chemical reaction to still occur.
Drain 1
Photo A
1 Graph
5. OPERATIONAL MATTERS Land Registry Work: Mr Michael Falcon has taken over the land registry/IDB ownership work left uncompleted by previous agent. Letter to all landowners/ratepayers adjacent to pumping stations requesting a statutory declaration, or evidence of any ownerships, sent in November, responses being returned. As part of the Broads Authority Landscape Partnership Heritage Lottery Funding bid, one suggestion has been to research the ownership of the drainage mills, search various archives etc before the documents disappear.
Toxic Algae (Prymnesium) Outbreak within the Upper Thurne: Both Operation Manager & Land Drainage Operative are assisting EA responding to a major fish kill (photo1) resulting from toxic algae bloom within the Thurne Catchment. At part of our response, two 150mm diameter temporary pumps were deployed to Dungeon Corner Martham (see photo 2 below) and along with Somerton South Auxiliary Pump currently on manual override have augmented good quality water into the River Thurne system. Substantial fish stocks (est. c.1million) shoaling at the discharge points were then captured by EA Officers and released safely elsewhere within the Broadland area. Local Parish representative Richard Starling helped to monitor water levels while officers rested and assisted as required. Chris Bielby from Natural England was notified regarding the temporary deviation from our normal operating protocols as required under Habitats Regulations on grounds of overriding Public Interest/Emergency Event.
Photo 1 Photo 2
Stracey Arms Wind Mill Access Improvements Site Meeting held with Operations Manager and Simon Daniels to discuss potentially mutually beneficial proposals to improve access for parking to enable access to the important historical Windmill structure. Simon Daniels (Vice Chair) was representing the Windmills Trust and explained they were forming a heritage bid to secure funding for highway improvements onto site along with other improvements to open up access around the building structures. As part of these works it is desirable to infill a small section of ditch to enable safer passage into the site. The ditch in question has caused operational problems for some time as it prevents access to the main drain feeding water into the Halvergate system. Decision required by the Board: the recommendation to the Board is to support the Windmill Trust Bid and subject to due diligence offer to undertake the works to infill this watercourse giving a
benefit in kind to which trust could gain match funding. Estimated cost c. £2,500.
6. TELEMETRY No major problems reported. OTT Hydrometry are updating and undertaking improvements to telemetry, assisted by Land Drainage Operative, with an estimated 3 months to completion. New data server installed at Head Office during this period also. Tony has submitted grant bid for £90k supported by EA, BA, NWT & EA so we may receive some grant although it does not fit all EA criteria.
7. HYDROLOGICAL REPORT Tidal: No unusual tides during this period Rainfall: Periods of unseasonal blocking high pressure systems have resulted in low rainfall over this period.
RAF East Marham East Buxton West Anglia 1981-2010 Lexham Local Buxton Month Anglia 1971-2000 Somerton 1981-2010 average Estate average observed Actual average observed 2015 average mm observed mm mm** mm* mm** mm mm*
JAN 53.4 55.4 56.1 57 59 49.7 57.8 45.8
FEB 37.2 39.5 39.3 72.5 44 40.7 38.0 30
MAR 44.8 25.1 49.1 32 51 29.1 49.0 76
APR 45.3 21.8 47.2 ? 46 19 45.8 7
MAY 44.8 53.3 47 41.4
JUN 54.3 59.2 64 55.2
JUL 46.0 52.1 59 51.6
AUG 50.1 58.8 67 53.2
RAF East Marham East Buxton West Anglia 1981-2010 Lexham Local Buxton Month Anglia 1971-2000 Somerton 1981-2010 average Estate average observed Actual average observed 2015 average mm observed mm mm** mm* mm** mm mm*
SEP 55.6 55.3 58 57.8
OCT 59.0 67.3 69 64.3
NOV 58.5 62.2 71 66.1
DEC 56.8 52.7 61 59.5
(Wettest year 2001 TOTALS 605.8 652.5 696 640 with 833mm.)
* http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2014 ** http://www.buxton-weather.co.uk/weather.htm#daily
The actual rainfall figures are an estimated mean for the district, are indicative only and can vary substantially from sub-catchment to sub-catchment.
8. COMPLAINTS Formal complaint has been received by local resident living at the end of the Mautby Pumping Station track. This track was laid as part of the original Pumping Station installation and has deteriorated by repeated use from heavy farm tractor and lorry plant. Typical damage to concrete can be seen on photos 3&4 below. Ownership is uncertain but in the event no records can be found it is possible the Board shares some responsibility. The complainant was contacted by the Catchment Engineer and they further indicated that they had at their own expense undertaken asphalt repairs (c£4k) to prevent further damage to the underside of their cars. The damage is extensive along the length of the road and costly to put right.
Photo 3 exposed reinforcing mesh Photo 4 Ground bearing failure resulting in slab collapse
9. INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD Defra Consultations: Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)
The government have consulted publically on their Flood Risk Management Plans and River Basin Management plans which will become the highest tier of water and flood risk management planning in England and Wales later this year. Both plans aim to take a catchment based approach to water and flood management and as a Flood Risk Management Authority, IDBs have a role to play in both commenting on the plans and delivering outcomes set out within them.
The Water Management Alliance (Eastern) has responded to both plans on behalf of the IDBs in Norfolk and Suffolk. We have done this in consultation with the East Suffolk Catchment Partnership, Broads Authority and Estuary partnerships in order to ensure our responses cover a wide range of issues that are relevant to our role in the catchment. We have also commented on the ADA response to Defra. Our response to both plans focussed on a number of key issues.
We have asked for greater recognition of the role of IDBs and the WMA as a Flood Risk Management Authority and delivery body for plan outcomes. We would have welcomed greater involvement in the development of these plans. We have highlighted the need for greater integration of existing plans and strategies stating that more work is needed to make these joined up and related to local needs and actions. In addition, better links between local actions and national measures that highlight where actions are being taken by water companies, IDBs, local authorities and members of catchment partnerships. We have sought assurances that the distinction between artificial and heavily modified water bodies and more natural water bodies must be upheld and clearly stated so as not impact on conveyance and drainage activities.
In relation to delivering WFD objectives we have stated that in order to build trust with partnerships and attract funders we must be able to show that the
improvements we make are having a positive effect and are transparent. We have also highlighted the need for a balance between the WFD remedies expected of the agricultural industry and those of water companies in relation to water quality improvements. In order to avoid short term, expensive solutions to managing water quality we have stated that the economic appraisal process must take sufficient account of the value of water level management and land drainage in rural areas and allow for medium and long term investment programmes.
Finally, greater emphasis is needed on the impact of non-native invasive species, the implementation of the eels regulations and the role of abstraction is not well addressed at all. The consultations are now closed and the EA will produce final plans in July/August 2015.
Medium Term Plan (MTP) Medium Term Plan(MTP) for 20-year capital works will not be presented to the Environment Agency in June. EA have fixed a 6 year Programme against last year’s MTP inputs. Officers have been advised they are to submit new or urgent matters in year to be considered by EA staff against other new entries.
10. STAFF/WORKFORCE – MEETINGS - TRAINING/EDUCATION Catchment Engineer attended the following meetings:
21January 2015 RFCC, EA & IDB liaison Meeting
19 February 2015 Halvergate & Fleet improvement Scheme Discussion with RSPB as outlined in main report.
24 February 2015 Water Framework Directive River Waveney Centre Officers meeting to discuss pending Catchment Partnership Action Fund (CPAF). Focus of day looking at doing more with less and the benefits of partnership working.
26 February 2015 Innovation in demountable defences Snape Maltings Company demonstrated an alternative to using sand bags for providing temporary defences. There was merit in using this system within an urban environment however to deploy them in a rural setting had limited benefits compared to mobilising heavy plant.
18 March 2015 Broads Authority Meeting Meeting with Andrea Kelly to discuss the opportunity seek funding from Europe to enable additional funds to be sort for the challenges faced within the wider Upper Thurne Catchment including the Brograve Catchment.
22 April 2015 Staff & Best Practice Meeting King Lynn Attended and contributed to works portfolio.
24 April 2015 Meeting with Windmills Trust Stracey Arms Windmill Discussion with Simon Daniels as outlined in main report.
30 April 2015 Broads Forum Catchment Engineer attended Broads Forum to explain the Board’s actions in saving millions of fish within the Upper Thurne system at Somerton and Martham. In doing so the Engineer was able to rebut the claim from EDP newspaper article that the Broads IDB caused the incident. Richard Starling (Somerton PC representative) was very supportive in this matter and I think all those present had a more enlightened view of our endeavours to limit the impact to the Boards environment and tourist industry.
During the meeting further concerns were also raised about the water quality within the Brograve system and again a comprehensive explanation was given of the efforts we were undertaking to move in a positive direction.
11. HEALTH AND SAFETY No reportable incidents during this reporting period. New CDM regulations came into force on 6 April 2015. Training for relevant personnel is in hand.
12. PLANNING REPORT All planning applications made to Broads Authority, Broadland District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, North Norfolk District Council, South Norfolk Council & Norwich City Council (where appropriate) were viewed for January to April, although a considerable number there were none that had a direct effect upon Broads IDB interests.
Broads (2006) IDB Environmental Report May 2015
The following information pertains to environmental work carried out for the Broads (2006) IDB involving the Technical and Environmental Officer (TEO), 09 January 2015 – 08 May 2015
1. Information for the Board
Toxic Algal Bloom within the Upper Thurne System The Broads IDB have been instrumental in saving hundreds of thousands of fish during the recent outbreak of toxic bloom of blue green algae (Prymnesium parvum) within the Upper Thurne system. An emergency operational response by Broads IDB operatives has been underway since mid-April following the death of thousands of fish in the river system.
Steve Lane, Technical Specialist for Fisheries with the Environment Agency has camera evidence to illustrate that hundreds of thousands of fish have been saved as a result of fresh water input into refuge areas within Upper Thurne, refreshed by water from the Somerton and Martham systems. It is hoped that the IDB will be able to work in partnership with the Environment Agency should further outbreaks of this killer algae take place in the future, particularly at this and other key fish aggregation zones within the Thurne such as Catfield Dyke.
New Water Vole Class Licence System - Update In an email to ADA's Chief Executive, Natural England's Rob Cathcart, Senior Specialist Freshwater and Wetlands, Biodiversity Delivery stated "Natural England has now considered the legal opinion commissioned from Freeths regarding displacement of water voles. Briefly, it remains Natural England's opinion that the cutting of vegetation to bare earth with the specific intention of making the area inhospitable to water voles, in the expectation that they will leave their burrows as a result, should be licensed on the grounds of disturbance to the water voles while in their burrows. We believe that the fact that water voles leave their burrows indicates that they have been disturbed".
Natural England also states "Of course, Natural England cannot compel anyone to apply for a licence, Class or Individual. It will be up to individual IDBs to decide whether or not they wish to register or apply for a licence. Ultimately it would be for a court to decide whether or not an offence had been committed". This reaffirms our previous discussion that it is for the individual Boards to determine if they want to work within the licence and will allow freedom for IDBs to work within published guidance and/or the advice of their own advisors if they prefer or negotiate their own individual licenses.
ADA's Technical and Environment Committee will be meeting on the 13th May and will decide on the most appropriate way to:
• Scrutinise the clauses within the draft license. • Provide the justification for undertaking displacement in the autumn.
Eel Monitoring - Stokesby Further investigations will be carried out during 2015 to monitor the ingress of glass eels entering the Stokesby system. Dr Adam Piper visited the site in April to reinstall the camera systems on the eel pass and make some amendments to the current monitoring system with the aim of encouraging glass eels to enter the system unhindered and allow us to record their behaviour.
New bristle brush one way system installed in the observation chamber to encourage the eels to travel in one direction downstream only.
Medium Priority Pumping Stations All Medium Priority Pumping stations were finally reported on via the Eel Passibility, (part I) forms to Capita, the contractor appointed by the Environment Agency to deliver solutions for eel passibility at Pumping Stations. The medium priority stations to be assessed by Capita are Heigham Holmes, Repps, Horning Grove, Brograve, Eastfield, Potter Heigham, Stubb, Eastfield, Thurne, Hermitage and Horse Fen. Many of these stations were looked at by representatives of Capita during site visits in March. We currently await the outputs and proposed solutions for Broads IDB High and Medium Term sites from Capita.
Muckfleet Maintenance Eilish Rothney from the Norfolk Wildlife Trust has been working with her volunteers to clear much of the woody debris from instream and the banks of the Burgh Doles, alongside the Muckfleet. Between February and March 2015 she and her volunteers have cleared an estimated two thirds of the length of the Burgh Doles in a manner compliant with the requirements of the WFD and to the requirements of the Burgh Common and Muckfleet European site. She has also been painting stumps with herbicide to prevent regrowth and has retained or strategically replaced some woody debris on the edges of the watercourse to discourage red deer from pushing in and poaching up the sides of the watercourse. She hopes to finish the last third of the Burgh Doles clearance in the Autumn and maintain the Burgh Doles regularly as part of the Burgh Doles Management Plan.
An example of scrub clearance on the Burgh Common side of the Muckfleet.
Muckfleet Structure It was raised at the Trinity Broads Partnership meeting of the 15 April that the Muckfleet Sluice had been altered without the permission of the water company or Natural England during the month of April and that water had been lost out of the Trinity Broads System over a three day period.
The Broads Authority and Essex and Suffolk Water would like to encourage all the Trinity Broads Partnership partners to spread the word to keep a look out for anyone tampering with the structure, as Essex and Suffolk Water have stressed that any further unauthorised alteration to the structure would likely result in the matter being placed in the hands of the Norfolk Police. The Trinity Broads Partnership would like to encourage all Board members to be vigilant and spread the word on this matter.
Catchment Partnership Action Fund The Broadland Catchment Partnership has secured £31K of funding from Defra’s Catchment Partnership Action Fund for a ‘Slow the Flow’ project. The Catchment Partnership Action Fund is for projects that could help to improve Water Framework Directive water body status in 2015/2016 and aims to construct and promote demonstration rural sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) in less productive, marginal areas of agricultural fields. Rural SuDS are generally low tech, low cost solutions that can collect, store and improve the quality of run-off from fields, roads and urban development. These small scale, yet easily deliverable projects can reduce surface water flooding, recharge groundwater and provide valuable wetland habitats. Examples of Rural SUDs include sediment traps, bunds and swales that can usually be constructed simply using a digger. Many are already in place in the catchment but more widespread adoption is sought to improve the effectiveness of existing buffer strips given increasing frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events.
Small grants £500-£5000 will be available for up to 100% funding in areas that are outside of Catchment Sensitive Farming Capital Grant Scheme Target Areas. Applications for potential schemes can be made May – August 2015. Successful applicants will be notified before September 2015. Works have to be completed and claimed by February 2016.
The potential benefits to the Board would be utilising the expertise in the design and creation of sediment traps which will be funded through the scheme using boards machines on a rechargeable basis. The kudos of delivering these schemes in the spirit of partnership working as part of the wider Broadland Catchment Partnership will be invaluable and many of the landowners sitting on the Board could benefit from these grant eligible schemes.
Further information on the Broadland Catchment Partnership and the catchment plan are available through the following links: Broadland Catchment Partnership with particular reference to catchment plan action 4.2.
Funding is competitive and any proposed scheme will be assessed against set criteria by the partnership Steering Group including any match funding/in kind contributions offered.
I have recently been working with Neil Punchard from the Broadland Catchment Partnership (a range of organisations including the IDBs and NFU) in relation rural SuDs in the Broads IDB area. For example, The Martham Drain has been highlighted as a potential site to install a rural SuDs system subject to the details being finalised with the landowner and other parties. The aim here would be to improve water quality entering the IDB main drains and the Trinity Broads SAC.
Neil Punchard will be giving a short presentation during the meeting to emphasise the merits of this project and allow land owners the opportunity to ask further questions on the project.
2. Statutory Duties towards Conservation
2.1 Prework Checks and Site Visits The following is a list of site visits and pre-works checks undertaken by the TEO:
19 January 2015 Upton Following on from the meeting held on 10 December 2014 with BESL, NE and the NWT, I visited Pete Butler on Upton marshes as he carried out a weedcutting exercise on Upton Marshes as part of the IDB BAP for Grasswrack Pondweed with the aim of encouraging the plant back to locations where it had once prevailed but had not been recorded for many years.
04 January 2015 I met with Alan Goose at Rollesby and Martham drains to discuss the proposed maintenance of the water courses.
11 February 2015 I met with Eilish Rothney (Norfolk Wildlife Trust) on site at the Muckfleet, to discuss and view the targeted scrub removal maintenance technique she and her volunteers were employing on the Burgh Doles side of the Muckfleet.
05 March 2015 Barry Harding and I met with representatives from Capita at Somerton South, Somerton North and Somerton Auxillary pumps to allow them to formulate a greater understanding of these high priority sites, prior to them providing eel pass solutions for the pumping stations.
18 March 2015 AM: Barry Harding and I met with representatives from Capita at Horsey, Heigham Holmes, Thurne, Repps, Stokesby and Mautby pumps to allow them to get an understanding of the actual sites prior to them providing eel pass solutions. Barry also took them to look at other high/ medium priority pumping stations on 19 March.
PM: I met with James Chapman, Alan Goose and Adrian Gardiner (Natural England) at Martham to look at the current main drain arrangement into the Trinity Broads with a potential view to altering the currently recorded main drain arrangement. The current arrangement on the map may be obsolete. However, any future maintenance or alteration from the current system will need Habs Regs approvals and assurances that water quality from the Martham drain will not cause detriment to the Trinity Broads European Site.
24 March 2015 I met with Neil Punchard (Broads Catchment Partnership) and Adrian Gardiner (Natural England) at Martham to discuss a potential rural SuDs partnership project for the Martham Drain, with the aim of preventing poor quality water impacting upon the Boards IDB drain and the Trinity Broads SAC.
16 April 2015 I met with Dr Adam Piper, Paula Rosewarne and Barry Harding at Stokesby to discuss future eel monitoring for Stokesby and discuss the forthcoming surveying and monitoring project of resident and migrating glass eel populations for Halvergate and the Somerton catchments.
3. Meetings and Training attended
12 January 2015 Meeting was held at Kettlewell House with IDB officers and officers from the Environment Agency to discuss the review of the Anglian River Basin Management Plan and to discuss any amendments to the classification of any of the Heavily Modified Waterbodies within the Norfolk Rivers catchment. Karen Thomas has subsequently commented on this document on the Board’s behalf.
20 January 2015 I met with Matthew Ellison at Kettlewell House to discuss the importance of ensuring appropriate calibration and record keeping of the new telemetry system.
19 February 2015 Meeting of IDB officers, Alan Goose, Karen Thomas, Giles Bloomfield and consultant John Worfolk at Berney Arms RSPB to discuss moving the Halvergate WLMP plan forward with particular reference to improving water management infrastructure surrounding the Fleet and focussing on partnership potential and opportunities with the RSPB as part of their forthcoming RSPB Interreg bid.
16 March 2015 A handover meeting to discuss the status of various projects was held with Tony Goodwin prior to him stepping down from his full time role as District Engineer on 31 March.
15 April 2015 The Trinity Broads Partnership meeting was attended. I reported that the topographical, ecological and structural surveys have been carried out on the Muckfleet Wall and we await a report on options from BESL. I was also able to thank Eilish Rothney for her work with her volunteers for the targeted scrub removal on the Muckfleet by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust
22 April 2015 A Staff meeting and a Best practice meeting was held at Kettlewell House
27 April 2015 An internal audit was carried out on the current ISO 14001 quality management system.
06 April 2015 External Audit of ISO 9001 and 14001 quality management systems carried out throughout the Boards of the WMA. The external audit was carried out by QMS and the Data Manager and TEA were in attendance. The WMA passed the audit on both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 quality management systems.
4. Non - Compliance Nothing to report in this period
5. Complaints Nothing for consideration in this period
6. Assents Granted and/or Applied for Nothing to be reported in this period
7. For Consideration by the Board Nothing for consideration in this period
From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Y-T-D Y-T-D Y-T-D Annual Pojected Projected Notes Income and Expenditure Account Budget Actual Variance Budget Out-Turn Variance £ £ £ £ £ £
Income:
Occupiers Drainage Rates 259,926 259,926 0 259,926 259,926 0
1 Special Levies issued by the Board 598,366 598,366 0 598,366 598,366 0
Grants Applied 304,000 252,147 -51,853 304,000 252,147 -51,853
Rental Income 1,100 1,134 34 1,100 1,134 34
2 Highland Water Contributions 140,000 164,924 24,924 140,000 164,924 24,924
3 Income from Rechargeable Works 1,000 87,937 86,937 1,000 87,937 86,937
Develepment Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Investment Interest 5,500 5,686 186 5,500 5,686 186
4 Other Income 900 7,928 7,028 900 7,928 7,028
5 Net Surplus on Operating Accounts 0 3,880 3,880 0 3,880 3,880
Total Income £1,310,792 £1,381,928 £71,136 £1,310,792 £1,381,928 £71,136
Less Expenditure:
6 Capital Works 429,000 431,891 -2,891 429,000 431,891 -2,891
7 Environment Agency Precept 137,128 137,128 0 137,128 137,128 0
8 Maintenance Works 795,595 684,986 110,609 795,595 684,986 110,609
Interest Payments 4,200 2,507 1,693 4,200 2,507 1,693
9 Administration Charges 73,858 37,551 36,307 73,858 37,551 36,307
3 Cost of Rechargeable Works 0 68,474 -68,474 0 68,474 -68,474
5 Net Deficit on Operating Accounts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Expenditure £1,439,781 £1,362,537 £77,244 £1,439,781 £1,362,537 £77,244
Profit/(Loss) on disposal of Fixed Assets 0 32,650 32,650 0 32,650 32,650
10 Net Surplus/(Deficit) -£128,989 £52,041 £181,030 -£128,989 £52,041 £181,030
From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Opening Movement Closing Notes Balance Sheet as at 31-3-2015 Balance This Year Balance £ £ £
11 Fixed Assets:
Land & Buildings 45,276 -1,029 44,247 Plant & Equipment 61,019 69,114 130,133 Pumping Stations 217,470 -36,995 180,475 323,765 31,090 354,855 Current Assets:
12 Bank Current Accounts 301,083 -342,741 -41,658 Stock 0 914 914 13 Debtors Control Account 58,944 17,871 76,815 14 Work in Progress 18,636 -18,636 0 15 Short Term Investments 1,100,000 200,000 1,300,000 16 Special Levies Due 0 0 0 17 Ratepayers Due 5,336 441 5,777 18 Prepayments 24,426 -24,426 1 Prepayments (WMA) 87,063 -30,125 56,938 Accrued Interest 78 2,108 2,186 VAT Due 37,591 14,751 52,342 1,633,157 -179,842 1,453,315 Less Current Liabilities:
Creditors Control Account 109,474 -67,307.18 42,167 19 Grants Unapplied 278,286 -84,091.00 194,195 Accruals 9,090 -459.16 8,631 Payroll Control 0 0.00 0 Finance Leases 0 0.00 0 20 Loans Due Less Than 1 Year 12,791 -5,440.64 7,350 409,641 -157,298 252,343
Net Current Assets 1,223,516 -22,544 1,200,972
Less Long Term Liabilities:
28 Net Pension Liability/(Asset) 60,000 63,000 123,000 20 Loans Due More Than 1 Year 21,202 -7,350 13,852 81,202 55,650 136,852
Net Assets £1,466,079 -£47,104 £1,418,975
21 Reserves:
Earmarked 22 General Reserve 614,777 245,977 860,754 23 Development Reserve 108,299 -180 108,119 24 Maintenance Works Reserve 0 0 0 25 Capacity Building/Partnership Working Reserve 0 0 0 Plant Reserve 305,827 0 305,827 26 Capital Works Reserve 228,256 -193,756 34,500 1,257,159 52,041 1,309,200 Non-Distributable 27 Revaluation Reserve 268,920 -36,145 232,775 28 Pension Reserve -60,000 -63,000 -123,000 208,920 -99,145 109,775
Total Reserves £1,466,079 -£47,104 £1,418,975
P J CAMAMILE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Note Notes to the Accounts
1 Special Levies collected from constituent Billing Authorities were as follows:
Y-T-D Budget Y-T-D Actual Broadland District Council 153,171 153,171 Great Yarmouth Borough Council 172,964 172,964 North Norfolk District Council 269,843 269,843 South Norfolk District Council 2,388 2,388 598,366 598,366
2 The Highland Water Claim for 2014/15 is due to be paid by the Environment Agency (EA) to the Board in September, following the recent changes made to the timetable (previously the payment was made in two installments - one in May and one in December).
3 A profit of £19,463 has been made on Rechargeable Works on various jobs.
4 Other Income for this year is made up as follows: Y-T-D Budget Y-T-D Actual Sundry Income/Wayleaves 525 74 Summons Costs 375 354 Sale of Horning Hall Pumping Station (redundant structure) 0 7,500 900 7,928
5 The Net Operating Surplus/(Defict) for this year to date is made up as follows:
Y-T-D Budget Y-T-D Actual Labour Operations Account 0 -9,868 Mobile Plant Operations Account 0 13,748 0 3,880
Detailed operating surpluses/(deficits) for the Labour Operations Account and each item of Mobile Plant are shown in the Labour and Plant Operations Reports, which can be made available to members on request.
6 (i) The gross cost and net cost of each capital scheme is detailed on the schedule of capital works and approved by the Board annually, which is managed by the District Engineer and can be made available to Members on request.
(ii) The Eel Regulations (England and Wales) 2009 place an obligation on operating authorities to ensure that pumping stations, inlets, sluices etc are regulation compliant. In 2012 it was agreed between the Environment Agency (Anglian Region) and the IDBs within that region to implement a joint region-wide consultancy contract to review the approx. 460 sites. A contract was awarded to Capita Symonds consultants to carry out a study and options appraisal for each of the priority sites within each IDB.
(iii) Sites within the Broads (2006) IDB are: Ashtree, Berney Arms, Breydon, Brograve, Eastfield, Five Mile, Heigham Holmes, Hermitage, Horning Grove, Horse Fen, Horsey, Kerrison’s Inlet, Mautby, Potter Heigham, Repps, Seven Mile, Somerton Auxiliary, Somerton North, Somerton South, Stracey Arms Inlet, Stubb, Thurne, Tunstall & Upton.
(iv) The protocol agreed was that each IDB would be awarded FDGiA, but that the consultancy would be managed by the EA, so in effect the grant payable was retained by the EA. Therefore there was no cost to each IDB other than some non-grant eligible staff time. The Broads IDB was thus ‘awarded’ £72,600 on 11th March 2015 under EA ref: IDB0359. This allowed approximately £3,000 per site.
7 The EA Precept due for 2014/15 is payable to the EA on 31 May and the other half is payable to them on 30 November.
8 The detailed maintenance operations in each sub catchment is approved by the Board annually and shown on the schedule of maintenance works, as managed by the Operations Manager, which can be made available to Members on request. Expenditure is analysed as follows: Y-T-D Budget Y-T-D Labour Charges 147,989 144,798 Pump Attendance 18,252 17,328 Plant Charges 63,968 56,456 Insurance 4,588 8,225 Out-sourced repairs and maintenance 141,719 110,959 From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Note Notes to the Accounts
Materials 10,000 3,783 Electricity 158,779 137,441 Telemetry 55,759 32,611 Plant Hire 0 1,579 Depreciation 0 0 Direct Works 601,054 513,181 Technical Support Costs (WMA) 185,307 162,771 Technical Support Costs (Direct) 0 0 BAP Costs 9,234 9,034 Maintenance Works 795,595 684,986
9 Administration charges reflect the Board's share of consortium expenditure (excluding the technical support costs, which are included in the maintenance works expenditure). Detailed expenditure is monitored by the Consortium Management Committee and the Board every three months:
Y-T-D Budget Y-T-D Actual Consortium Charges 71,039 34,637 Drainage Rates AV Increases/(Decreases) 476 475 Kettlewell House Depn 943 1,029 Sundry Expenses 1,400 1,410 Sundry Debtors written off 0 0 73,858 37,551
10 At the time of preparing the Estimates, the Board planned to finance the estimated net deficit this year as follows:
Budget Development Reserve 0 Plant Reserve 0 General Reserve -128,989 -128,989
11 The movement in Fixed Assets is detailed in the Fixed Assets Register for 2014/15, which can be made available to members on request. Summarised movements are as follows:
Land and Plant and Pumping Buildings Equipment Stations Total Cost Opening Balance as at 1 April 2014 51,450 150,160 414,222 615,832 (+) Additions 0 108,785 0 108,785 (-) Disposals 0 -57,862 -1,500 -59,362 Closing Balance as at 31 March 2015 51,450 201,083 412,722 665,255
Depreciation Opening Balance as at 1 April 2014 6,174 89,141 196,752 292,066 (+) Depreciation Charge for year 1,029 27,671 36,145 64,845 (-) Accumulated depreciation written out on disposal 0 -45,862 -650 -46,512 Closing Balance as at 31 March 2015 7,203 70,950 232,247 310,400
Net Book Value as at 31 March 2014 45,276 61,019 217,470 323,766 Net Book Value as at 31 March 2015 44,247 130,133 180,475 354,856
12 The Bank Current Account balance will be kept to a minimum following the decision to invest additional working balances on the short term money market. The Bank Account is reconciled as follows:
2013/14 2014/15 Opening Balance as at 1 April b/fwd 265,531 301,083 (+) Receipts 1,724,510 1,770,261 (-) Payments -1,688,957 -2,113,003 (=) Closing Balance 31 March c/fwd 301,083 -41,658
Balance on Statement as at 31 March 346,282 195,024 Less: Unpresented Payments -45,199 -236,682 From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Note Notes to the Accounts
Add: Unpresented Receipts 0 0 Closing Balance 31 March c/fwd 301,083 -41,658
13 Aged Debtor profile is currently as follows: Number of Debt period Amount Debtors <=30 days 35,794 4 >30 days and <=60 days 5,898 2 >60 days and <=90 days 0 0 >90 days 35,123 1 76,815 7
>90 days Amount Inv.Date Originator EA0001 (due September 2015) 35,123 EA HWC CEO 35,123
14 Work In Progress (WIP) is currently made up of the following jobs:. Estimated Completion Originator N/A 0 N/A N/A 0
15 Term Deposits are currently as follows: Investment Maturity Financial Institution Capital Date Date Interest Rate Natwest 500,000 31/10/2013 14/10/2015 0.83% Nottingham B/S 200,000 30/01/2015 30/04/2015 0.51% Manchester B/S 200,000 13/02/2015 15/05/2015 0.48% National Counties 400,000 27/02/2015 29/05/2015 0.50% 1,300,000
16 Special Levies are due to be paid by Constituent Councils in two halves on 1 May and 1 November every year.
17 Drainage Rates are paid by occupiers of agricultural land and/or buildings. There are currently 19 Ratepayers that have not paid their Drainage Rates for 2014/15, as compared to 34 Ratepayers this time last year. Summarised transactions for Drainage Rates and Special Levies during the year are as follows: 2013/14 2014/15 Arrears b/fwd 16,346 5,336 Drainage Ratepayers 253,589 259,926 Special Levies for the year 0 598,367 Payments Received -265,350 -857,858 Annual Value Decrease 0 -5,899 Annual Value Increase 0 5,391 New Assessments 0 509 Irrecoverables and write offs -49 -576 Summons Collection Costs 800 454 Special Leyv Adjustment 0 -1 Sundry adjustments 0 129 Arrears c/fwd 5,336 5,777
18 There are no current prepayments.
19 Grants Unapplied are those grants that we have received in advance of doing work on the following schemes:
2013/14 2014/15 SCH02: Hickling Broad - Stubb Road (100%) 2,588 77 SCH04: Upton WLMP (100%) 1,436 586 SCH05: Calthorpe Broad (100%) 403 403 SCH10: Halvergate Marshes WLMA (100%) 0 16,596 SCH11: Suton Ochre Improvement (100%) 114 114 SCH19: Damgate Marshes (100%) 69 69 SCH21: Halvergate 10,104 0 SCH23: Shallam Dyke 5,729 2,729 SCH50: Parrots Feather: Norfolk County Council (100%) 2,448 2,448 SCH57: South Walsham GWP (100%) 40 40 From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Note Notes to the Accounts
SCH04: Eel monitoring at Halvergate and Somerton 0 10,000 SCH31: Brograve Study (100%) 63,306 74,713 SCH45: Hickling (100%) 26,505 26,505 SCH06: Stubb Mill Pump Replacement (45%) 4,294 4,186 SCH12: Muckfleet Survey & Options Appraisal 0 32,549 SCH13: Five Mile Pump Replacement (45%) 787 787 SCH14: Hermitage Pump/Structure Replacement (45%) 800 800 SCH15: Thurne Pumping Station (45%) 1,257 717 SCH25: Health & Safety 0 0 SCH27: Ludham Bridge 5,969 2,988 SCH60: Tunstall Pumping Station Emergency Works (45%) 4,653 2,684 SCH59: Stokesby Pumping Station Emergency Works 0 0 SCH07: Potter Heigham Automatic Weedscreen 22,109 4,632 SCH09: River Yare Pumping Station Improvement 12,746 6,977 SCH32: Eastfield Pumping Station Auto Weedscreen 28,026 2,066 SCH33: Tonnage Bridge Pumping Station Auto Weedscreen 38,186 1,529 SCH08: St Benet's Pumping Station Improvement 46,717 0 278,286 194,195
20 Outstanding Public Works Loan is currently as follows:
<= 1 year Loan Number 478101: Upton Dole Pumping Station (8.125%) 7,350 Payments due: August 2015 & February 2016
> 1 year Loan Number 478101: Upton Dole Pumping Station (8.125%) 13,852 Last payment due: 2016/17 13,852
21 The Reserves are managed in accordance with the Capital Financing and Reserves Policy, as approved by the Board on 20 January 2014. This policy is available for viewing on the Board's website.
22 Movements on the General Reserve are made up as follows:
2013/14 2014/15 Opening Balance, as at 1 April b/fwd 345,999 614,778 Net Surplus/(Deficit) for the year 203,016 52,041 Net transfer (to)/from Development Reserve 21,862 180 Net transfer (to)/from Maintenance Works Reserve 19,275 0 Net transfer (to)/from Capacity Building/Partnership Working 85,000 0 Net transfer (to)/from Capital Works Reserve -60,375 193,756 Closing Balance, as at 31 March c/fwd 614,778 860,755
23 The purpose of the Development Reserve is to reduce the impact on drainage rates from development that takes place in the area. The Board charges developers a standard rate per impermeable hectare for agricultural land which is developed and becomes a hard standing area, such as housing, roadways etc. The money is credited to this Reserve (earmarked to the sub catchment) and then used to reduce the gross cost of capital work needed to cater for the additional flows arising from such development. The income for this Reserve therefore comes exclusively from developers and is used to help fund improvement works that are necessary because of development. The Development Reserve is curently made up as follows:
Tfr from Tfr to 2013/14 Gen. Reserve Gen. Reserve 2014/15 Muckfleet and South Flegg (Former Sub District) 103,841 0 -180 103,661 Middle Bure (Former Sub District) 4,458 0 0 4,458 108,299 0 -180 108,119
24 Movements on the Maintenance Works Reserve are made up as follows:
2013/14 2014/15 Opening Balance, as at 1 April b/fwd 19,275 0 Ashtree Pumping Station -4,000 0 Breydon Pumping Station -775 0 Brograve Pumping Station -6,000 0 From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Note Notes to the Accounts
Five Mile Pumping Station -4,500 0 Upton Doles Pumping Station -4,000 0 Closing Balance, as at 31 March c/fwd 0 0
25 Movements on the Capacity Building/Partnership Working Reserve are made up
2013/14 2014/15 Opening Balance, as at 1 April b/fwd 85,000 0 Tfr to General Reserve -85,000 0 Closing Balance, as at 31 March c/fwd 0 0
26 The Capital Works Reserve largely represents the committed cost of capital schemes that the Board has approved where suppliers have not actually invoiced for work, either due to slippage in the programme or other issues with the contract. The advantage to the Board of committing scheme costs at the time contracts are awarded is that grant aid can be claimed in advance of incurring the expenditure, and, the year end balance of the General Reserve does not fluctuate significantly. The Capital Works Reserve is currently made up as follows:
Tfr from Tfr to 2013/14 Gen. Reserve Gen. Reserve 2014/15 SCH27: Ludham Bridge Pumping Station Refurbishment 6,500 0 0 6,500 SCH60: Tunstall Pump Replacement (Emergency Works) 15,000 0 -9,000 6,000 SCH07: Potter Heigham Weedscreen 10,886 0 -10,886 0 SCH32: Eastfield Weedscreen 46,750 0 -40,250 6,500 SCH33: Tonnage Bridge Weedscreen 44,000 0 -40,500 3,500 SCH61: Cess Lane Martham Culvert 6,000 0 -6,000 0 Stracey Arms Culvert 5,000 0 0 5,000 Buckenham Pumping Station Refurbishment 17,417 0 -10,417 7,000 Cantley Pumping Station Refurbishment 17,417 0 -17,417 0 Seven Mile Pumping Station Refurbishment 17,417 0 -17,417 0 St Benet's Pumping Station Refurbishment 41,869 0 -41,869 0 228,256 0 -193,756 34,500
27 Movements on the Revaluation Reserve are made up as follows: 2014/15 Opening Balance, as at 1 April b/fwd 268,920 Less: Pumping Station Depreciation -36,145 Closing Balance, as at 31 March c/fwd 232,775
28(i) The Board provides its employees with access to the Local Government Pension Scheme but does not need to Account for this as a defined benefit pension scheme to comply with the limited assurance audit regime. However the Board has chosen to do so because it does have a pension liability, which has been calculated by the LGPS Fund Actuary as at 31 March 2015.
28(ii) The Board is a member of the Water Management Alliance Consortium and as such will also have a proportion of the pension liability for the shared staff that are employed by King's Lynn IDB, t/a the Water Management Alliance. The Fund Actuary for Norfolk County Council has now prepared a separate Report for the Water Management Alliance, which identifies a notional net pension liability of £1,433,000 as at 31 March 2015 that is shared by all 5 Member Boards.
29 Related Party Disclosures
(i) The Board is a full member of Anglia Farmers Ltd, an agricultural purchasing cooperative. Several members of the Board are also shareholders of this organisation. Board member Mr S Wright is also a Director of Anglia Farmers Ltd. The Board made payments of £197,540.12 to this company upto 31/03/15.
(ii) The following Board members have performed pump attendant duties at the Board's pumping stations during the year, for which they have received an allowance. Mr L Baugh is a Director of JH & PE Nicholson Ltd, a company that received £900 from the Board for pump attendant duties, Mr Harris received £9,716.40 from the Board for pump attendant duties and £1,200 for general maintenace, Mr Sharman received £750 from the Board for pump attendant duties, Mr Wharton received £1,163.26 from the Board for pump attendant duties and Mr Wright received £1,638 from the Board for pump attendant duties.
(iii) All elected members of the Board pay drainage rates either as individuals, Partners in Partnerships, or as Directors of limited
From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
Note Notes to the Accounts
companies; the exact nature of which can be found in the Rate Book as at 1 April 2014.
(iv) The Board is a member of the Water Mangement Alliance Consortium, who provide administrative services to the Board. The Board has 3 representatives who serve on the Consortium Management Committee, that include the Chairman and the 2 Vice Chairmen of the Board. The Chairman received £2,333 Chairman's Allowance and £54 travelling expenses.
(v) The Board rents land at Mustard Hyrn Farm, Cess Road, Martham from BG Goose & Partners, to whom it paid £4,200 rent costs for 2014/15. The Board has also paid BG Goose & Partners a sum of £23,368.20 for undertaking tractor & flail work upto 31/03/15. The Board's Operations Manager is a partner of this business.
(vi) The Board has paid Ben Goose £35,180.10 upto 31/03/15 for undertaking excavation and basket cutting work. The Board's Operations Manager is related to Ben Goose.
(vii) The Board has paid £1,261.18 to Chapman Farms Ltd during 2014/15 for renting space to house telemetry equipment at Thunderhill and for renting the land to house Somerton Auxilliary Pumping Station Kiosk. The Board member Mr J Chapman is a Director in this company.
(viii) The Board uses Rating Software for the collection of Drainage Rates known as DRS. This software is owned by South Holland IDB and was developed by Mr PJ Camamile, the Chief Executive. The software is supported at no cost to the Board by Byzantine Ltd. Mr PJ Camamile is the Company Secretary of Byzantine Ltd and his wife Mrs P Camamile is a Director. Both are shareholders.
Recommended Actions:
1. To approve the Financial Report for the year ending 31 March 2015.
2. To approve the Accounting Statement shown in section 1 of the Annual Return for 2014/15.
P J CAMAMILE M FUTTER CHIEF EXECUTIVE FINANCE OFFICER From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
ACTUAL ACTUAL BOX NO. ANNUAL RETURN, FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2015 2013/14 2014/15 £ £
1 Balances brought forward General Reserve 346,000 614,778 Development Reserve 130,161 108,299 Maintenance Works Reserve 19,275 0 Capacity Building/Partnership Working Reserve 85,000 0 Plant Reserve 305,827 305,827 Capital Works Reserve 167,881 228,256 Revaluation Reserve 306,215 268,920 Pension Reserve -24,000 -60,000 As per Statement of Accounts 1,336,359 1,466,080
(-) Fixed Assets, Long Term Liabilities and Loans Pension Liability -24,000 -60,000 Loans Outstanding (Current Liabilities) -11,812 -12,791 Long Term Borrowing -33,993 -21,202 Net Book Value of Tangible Fixed Assets 383,036 323,766 313,231 229,773
(=) Adjusted Balances brought forward 1,023,128 1,236,307
2 (+) Rates and Special Levies Drainage Rates 253,589 259,926 Special Levies issued by the Board 583,779 598,366 As per Statement of Accounts 837,368 858,292
3 (+) All Other Income Grants Applied 242,016 252,147 Rental Income 1,936 1,134 Highland Water Contributions 194,492 164,924 Income from Rechargeable Works 39,613 87,937 Investment Interest 5,128 5,686 Development Contributions 0 0 Net Surplus on Operating Accounts 10,362 3,880 Other Income 80,858 7,928 Profit/(Loss) on disposal of Fixed Assets 0 32,650 As per Statement of Accounts 574,405 556,286
(+) Income from Sale of Fixed Assets (above profit/(loss) Capital Cost of disposals 0 59,362 Less: Accumulated depreciation written out 0 -46,512 0 12,850
(=) Adjusted Other Income 574,405 569,136
4 (-) Watercourses and Pumping Stations Capital Works 406,212 431,891 Maintenance Works 607,374 684,986 As per Statement of Accounts 1,013,586 1,116,877 From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
ACTUAL ACTUAL BOX NO. ANNUAL RETURN, FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2015 2013/14 2014/15 £ £
(-) Depreciation charged to Maintenance Works Plant and Equipment 20,906 27,671 Pumping Stations 40 0 Buildings 0 0 20,946 27,671
(=) Adjusted Watercourses and Pumping Stations 992,640 1,089,206
5 (-) Loan Interest/Capital Repayments Loan Interest 3,486 2,507 Capital Repayments 11,812 12,791 As per Statement of Accounts 15,298 15,298
6 (-) All Other Expenditure Environment Agency Precept 133,523 137,128 Administration Charges 19,777 37,551 Cost of Rechargeable Works 38,385 68,474 Net Deficit on Operating Accounts 0 0 Depreciation/(Revaluation) of Pumping Stations 37,295 36,145 As per Statement of Accounts 228,980 279,298
(-) All Other Expenditure (Non Cash) Depreciation/(Revaluation) of Pumping Stations 37,295 36,145 Depreciation on Kettlewell House (included in admin.exp.) 1,029 1,029 38,324 37,174
(+) Capitalised Additions Land and Buildings 0 0 Plant and Equipment 0 108,785 0 108,785
(=) Adjusted Other Expenditure 190,656 350,909
7 (=) Balances carried forward General Reserve 614,778 860,754 Develoment Reserve 108,299 108,119 Maintenance Works Reserve 0 0 Capacity Building/Partnership Working Reserve 0 0 Plant Reserve 305,827 305,827 Capital Works Reserve 228,256 34,500 Revaluation Reserve 268,920 232,775 Pension Reserve -60,000 -123,000 As per Statement of Accounts 1,466,080 1,418,975
(-) Fixed Assets, Long Term Liabilities and Loans Pension Reserve -60,000 -123,000 Loans Outstanding (Current Liabilities) -12,791 -7,350 Long Term Borrowing -21,202 -13,852 Net Book Value of Tangible Fixed Assets 323,766 354,855 From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
ACTUAL ACTUAL BOX NO. ANNUAL RETURN, FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2015 2013/14 2014/15 £ £
229,773 210,653
(=) Adjusted Balances carried forward 1,236,307 1,208,322 1,236,307 1,208,322 8 Total Cash and Short Term Investments Cash at Bank and in Hand 301,083 -41,658 Short Term Investments 1,100,000 1,300,000 As per Statement of Accounts 1,401,083 1,258,342
9 Total Fixed Assets and Long Term Assets Land and Buildings (Capital Cost C/Fwd) 51,450 51,450 Plant and Equipment (Capital Cost C/Fwd) 150,160 201,083 Pumping Stations (Capital Cost C/Fwd) 414,222 412,722 As per Statement of Accounts 615,832 665,255
10 Total Borrowings Loans Due (<= 1 Year) 12,791 7,350 Loans Due (> 1 Year) 21,202 13,852 As per Statement of Accounts 33,993 21,202 From: 01 April 2014 Period To: 12 To: 31 March 2015 Year Ended: 31 March 2015
ACTUAL ACTUAL BOX NO. ANNUAL RETURN, FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2015 2013/14 2014/15 £ £
ACTUAL ACTUAL 7, 8 RECONCILIATION BETWEEN BOXES 7 AND 8 2013/14 2014/15 £ £
7 Balances carried forward (adjusted) 1,236,307 1,208,322
(-) Deduct: Debtors and Prepayments Debtors Control Account 58,944 76,815 Special Levies Due 0 0 Stock and Work in Progress 18,636 914 Ratepayers Due 5,336 5,777 Prepayments 24,426 1 Prepayments - WMA 87,063 56,938 Accrued Interest 78 2,186 Vat Due from HMRC 37,591 52,342 Grants Due 0 0 232,074 194,973
(+) Add: Creditors and Payments Received in Advance Creditors Control Account 109,474 42,167 Grants Unapplied 278,286 194,195 Accruals 9,090 8,631 Payroll Control 0 0 396,850 244,993
(=) Box 8 1,401,083 1,258,342
8 (=) Total Cash and Short Term Investments Cash at Bank and in Hand 301,083 -41,658 Short Term Investments 1,100,000 1,300,000 1,401,083 1,258,342
P J CAMAMILE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
11 MAY 2015
Broads (2006) IDB Schedule of Paid Accounts
Payment Date From : 01/01/2015 Payment Date To : 31/03/2015 Amount Paid -3,515.70 This Period Account ID Name Details -69,425.78 AN0002 Anglia IT Solutions Ltd Server for Telemetry 3,515.70 -729.60 AN0120 Anglia Farmers Ltd Electric 69,425.78 -700.00 BA0003 D J Barham Repairs 729.60 -356.98 BR0003 Mr A Brightwell Pump Attendant 700.00 -354.76 BT0001 BT Payment Services Telephone/Broadband 356.98 -230.92 (EA39550120) BT0002 BT Payment Services Telephone/Broadband 354.76 -972.00 (WM38489919) BT0003 BT Payment Services Telemetry 230.92 -1,396.16 (EA39183360) CH0003 Childcare @ Walnut Corner Childminder 972.00 -77,340.00 CJ0340 C J Spares Ltd Spares 1,396.16 -12,817.80 ER0001 Ernest Doe & Sons Ltd New Plant 77,340.00 -5,601.60 GO0742 B J Goose Drain Maintenance 12,817.80 -31.55 GO0744 B G Goose & Partners Plant Hire & Labour 5,601.60 -9,716.40 GS0001 G & S Stores Ltd Small Tools 31.55 -5.18 HA0001 M P Harris Pump Maintenance 9,716.40 -38,049.14 HU0001 Hubble Small Tools 5.18 -1,474.51 HU0850 D C Hunt All Pump Maint/Capital 38,049.14 -11,295.89 ID0901 I D Spares & Services Ltd Pump Maintenance 1,474.51 -166.80 IN0950 Inland Revenue Paye & NIC 11,295.89 -323.42 KE0001 Kenneth Robson Equipment Ltd Plant Repairs 166.80 -750.00 KI1105 Kings Lynn IDB Rechargeable Work 323.42 -600.00 KI1110 Mr R J Kittle Pump Attendance 750.00 -590.00 LA0001 W Lanham & Son Ltd Lowloader Move 600.00 -96.00 LO0001 Robin Lofty Plant Maintenance 590.00 -5,855.22 LU1290 Ludham Garage Ltd Plant Service 96.00 -2,054.78 MO0003 Mole Valley Ltd Gas Oil 5,855.22 -8,607.83 NI1450 Nicholsons Hardware 2,054.78 -3,979.20 NO1470 Norfolk Pension Fund Pension Contributions 8,607.83 -87,269.88 OR1550 Oriel Systems Ltd Telemetry Maintenance 3,979.20 -474.48 OTT001 OTT Hydromet Ltd Capital Works 87,269.88 -5,306.93 PE0001 Peoplesafe Lone Worker Unit 474.48 -7,649.14 PI0001 Piper Rosewarne Aquatic Capital Works 5,306.93 -570.45 Research Ltd PU1650 Public Works Loan Board Loan Repayment 7,649.14 -60.01 VO0001 Vodafone Mobile Phones 570.45 -3,260.65 WA0001 Water Management Alliance Rechargeable Work 60.01 -168.00 WO0002 Mr J M Worfolk Consultant Engineer 3,260.65 YA0001 Yarmouth Electrical Mechanical Weedscreen cleaner repairs 168.00 Services Ltd
£ 361,796.76 BROADS INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD RISK REGISTER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER/ STRATEGIC KEY ASSURANCES RISK GAPS IN GAPS IN RISKS ACTION PLAN MEMBER & OBJECTIVES CONTROLS ON CONTROLS SCORE CONTROL ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION DATE
To reduce the flood risk Reduction in, Budget is Reviewed and Asset Chief Executive to people, property, or insufficient prepared approved by 8 Management ongoing public infrastructure and finance, grant based on need Board Plan to profile the natural environment and income (prioritised) future funding by providing and requirements to maintaining technically, EA may cease Income and Financial Report feed this info in environmentally and to pay highland Expenditure is to each Board to the EA Mid- economically sustainable water regularly meeting Term Capital flood defences within the contributions to monitored Programme Internal Drainage District IDBs Board has (IDD) Asset approved Asset Explore Management Management alternative Plan Plan and profiled funding future funding avenues if requirements, highland water which have been contributions fed in to the EAs terminated Mid-Term Capital Programme
Earmarked Balances and Reserves Policy subsequently replaced by Capital Financing & Reserves Policy Jan 2014
Environment IDB is Board Reports No Develop Chief Executive/ Agency (EA) is consulted on with input from 8 Investment Investment Engineer ongoing no longer outcomes, Councils Plan for Plan with key willing or able following reinstating stakeholders in to carry out publication of Government primary sea each flood work on sea EA Shoreline Policy and EA walls, should compartment
Updated 19 January 2015 BROADS INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD RISK REGISTER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER/ STRATEGIC KEY ASSURANCES RISK GAPS IN GAPS IN RISKS ACTION PLAN MEMBER & OBJECTIVES CONTROLS ON CONTROLS SCORE CONTROL ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION DATE
defences that Management SMPs the EA walk protects the Plans/ away, Internal Strategies following Drainage publication of District, or Strategies continues to maintain these but to a reduced standard
EA is no longer Informal Board Reports Need to Need to Formally record Chief Executive/ willing or able contact with 6 formally formally the works Engineer to carry out EA Ops Team identify and record the requested and work on Main advise EA of works whether or not Rivers, which Consultation EA CFMPs works requested and the EA has then limits the on required, and, whether or not authorised Board’s ability preparation/rev Availability of the develop a the EA has such works to fulfil its iew of EA PSCA developed protocol for authorised statutory Catchment by ADA/EA to carrying out such works function Flood facilitate the work/ Management partnership recharging EA Plans (CFMPs) working with accordingly other Risk Mgmt Annual IDB/EA Authorities liaison meeting
Operations Work with EA, EA guidelines Officers and Chief Executive / works NE and have been 8 members Eng / Operations / constrained by voluntary received. attended WFD Tech & Env the Water sector orgs to Updated and Habs Regs ongoing Framework meet WFD guidelines from Assessments Directive requirements. EA ongoing workshop Oct legislation and Agree 2013 organised Habitat interpretation by EA/NE Updated 19 January 2015 BROADS INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD RISK REGISTER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER/ STRATEGIC KEY ASSURANCES RISK GAPS IN GAPS IN RISKS ACTION PLAN MEMBER & OBJECTIVES CONTROLS ON CONTROLS SCORE CONTROL ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION DATE
Regulations of Habitat Assessments Regulations Assessments Onus of proof with NE. sits with IDBs Pursue funding from all available sources.
To become the delivery LLFA and/or Taking a active Minutes of No KPIs exist Partnership Develop KPIs Chief Executive partner of choice for the EA use role in County decisions taken 6 for IDB Minutes and for Board by ongoing Lead Local Flood contractors to FRM through the Local Industry EA/IDB liaison working with Authority (LLFA) and carry out the Partnership Flood Risk against which Minutes not ADA so that Environment Agency work in areas Management to benchmark made Board can (EA) within the Board’s outside the Build trust and Partnership and performance available to demonstrate hydraulic sub catchment Internal understanding the Regional Board value for Drainage with LLFA, EA Flood Defence money and District (IDD) and DEFRA Committee professionalism and on Main to LLFA and Rivers/Tidal EA Defences both in and outside Back office Regular officer Take on such the IDD functions are liaison meetings work wherever spread across with EA possible to DEFRA the WMA demonstrate introduce new Member professionalism legislation/ Boards to and value for regulation, reduce costs, money which prevents strengthen IDBs from organisation Monitor taking on extra and increase Performance work (Public influence and periodically Bodies Act) review Member of Governance
Updated 19 January 2015 BROADS INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD RISK REGISTER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER/ STRATEGIC KEY ASSURANCES RISK GAPS IN GAPS IN RISKS ACTION PLAN MEMBER & OBJECTIVES CONTROLS ON CONTROLS SCORE CONTROL ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION DATE
LLFA and EA ADA Arrangements take over the functions of the Provide IDB Members with web link to Minutes of LLFA and EA RFCC meetings
Develop linkages with local media
Unable to take Arrangement WMA Consortium Explore new Chief Executive on the extra with WMA Agreement 6 funding ongoing work due to Member approved by the sources locally lack of Boards for Board and with EA, LLFA resources support periodically and others reviewed by Consortium Review Rating Management and Electoral Committee Sub Districts (CMC)
Updated 19 January 2015 Risk Assessment Matrix (From the Risk Management Strategy and Policy as approved 28 January 2011)
Impact Considerable Must manage and Extensive High management monitor risks (8) management required (6) required (9) Risks may be worth Management effort Management effort Medium accepting with worthwhile (5) required (7) monitoring (3)
Accept, but monitor, Manage and monitor Low Accept risks (1) risks (2) risks (4)
Low Medium High Likelihood of Occurrence
The high, medium and low categories for impact and likelihood are defined as follows:
IMPACT
• High – will have a catastrophic effect on the operation/service delivery. May result in major financial loss (over £100,000) and/or major service disruption (+5 days) or impact on the public. Death of an individual or several people. Complete failure of project or extreme delay (over 2 months). Many individual personal details compromised/revealed. Adverse publicity in national press.
• Medium – will have a noticeable effect on the operation/service delivery. May result in significant financial loss (over £25,000). Will cause a degree of disruption (2 – 5 days) or impact on the public. Severe injury to an individual or several people. Adverse effect on project/significant slippage. Some individual personal details compromised/revealed. Adverse publicity in local press.
• Low – where the consequences will not be severe and any associated losses and or financial implications will be low (up to £10,000). Negligible effect on service delivery (1 day). Minor injury or discomfort to an individual or several people. Isolated individual personal detail compromised/revealed. NB A number of low incidents may have a significant cumulative effect and require attention.
LIKELIHOOD
• High - very likely to happen
• Medium - likely to happen infrequently
• Low - unlikely to happen.
OHES Project Reference: 6283
Somerton Water Level Management Plan Review
by OHES on behalf of:
Tony Goodwin Broads IDB
FINAL
29th July 2014
1
This page has been left blank intentionally
2
Somerton Water Level Management Plan Review
Tony Goodwin District Engineer (Eastern) Broads & Norfolk Rivers IDBs Site Office Ludham Bridge Ludham Norfolk NR29 5NX
Activity Name Position Author Alix Pitcher Restoration Ecologist Approved by Mike Hill Divisional Manager – Ecology and Environmental Monitoring
This report was prepared by OHES Environmental Ltd (OHES) solely for use by Water Management Alliance. This report is not addressed to and may not be relied upon by any person or entity other than Water Management Alliance for any purpose without the prior written permission of the Water Management Alliance, OHES, its directors, employees and affiliated companies accept no responsibility or liability for reliance upon or use of this report (whether or not permitted) other than by Water Management Alliance for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.
1 The Courtyard Denmark Street Wokingham Berkshire RG40 2AZ
www.ohes.co.uk
3
This page has been left blank intentionally
4
CONTENTS
1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 7 1.1 Purpose of the WLMP 7 1.2 Agricultural Objectives 7 1.3 Nature Conservation Objectives 7 1.4 Objectives of Other Land Uses 8
2 SITE DETAILS 9 2.1 Location 9 2.2 Site Status 9 2.3 Local Planning Authorities 12 2.4 Operating Authority 12 2.5 Owners, Occupiers and Stakeholders 12
3 LAND USES 15 3.1 Conservation Interest 15 3.1.1 SSSI and International Interest 15 3.1.2 Non-statutory Conservation Interest 17 3.1.3 Conservation Aims 20 3.2 Agriculture 21 3.3 Flood Defence 21 3.4 Services 22 3.5 Other Land Uses 22
4 HYDROLOGY 23 4.1 Current Hydrological Function 23 4.2 Water Levels 25 4.3 Impacts on Ecology 31 4.4 Maintenance Responsibilities 31
5 WATER QUALITY 33 5.1 Ochre 33 5.2 Salinity 34 5.3 Site History and Current Situation 34
6 WATER LEVEL AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 39 6.1 Water Level Management Objectives and Recommendations 39 6.2 Summary of Recommendations 41
7 CONSTRAINTS AND IMPACTS ON ADJACENT GROUND 43 7.1 Constraints 43 7.2 Impacts on Adjacent Ground 43
5
8 ALTERATIONS TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES 45
9 OTHER PROPOSED ACTION 47 9.1 Monitoring 47 9.2 Further Investigations 47
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY 49
FIGURES, TABLES AND PHOTOS
Figure 2.2: Conservation features and designation boundaries at Somerton Figure 3: Land use within the Somerton Catchment Figure 3.1.2a: Areas identified as suitable habitat for wintering wildfowl. Figure 3.1.2b: Areas identified as suitable habitat for breeding wildfowl. Figure 4.1: Hydrological operations within the Somerton Catchment Figure 4.2.1: Pump and precipitation data at Somerton Figure 4.2.2: Arable ditches proposed for water level reduction
Table 2.5: Owners, occupiers and stakeholders within the Somerton catchment Table 3: International features of the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes (last updated in 2008)
Photo 4.2.1: Gauge board at Somerton North Pump (27/07/2013, A. Pitcher Photo 4.2.2: Somerton South Pump gauge board (03/10/2013, A. Pitcher) Photo 5.3: Ochre along the main dyke at North Pump (23rd July 2013, A. Pitcher)
6
1. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
1.1 Purpose of the WLMP
Water Level Management Plans (WLMP) were an initiative developed by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1994. The Plans provide a means of balancing and integrating the requirements of a range of activities in a particular area, including agriculture, flood defence and conservation. A previous WLMP was prepared for the Somerton catchment by Mike Harding in 2001.
OHES were commissioned by the Broads Internal Drainage Board (IDB) to investigate the possibility of establishing a hydrological management regime that satisfies both the nature conservation objectives and agricultural objectives within the catchment of Somerton.
1.2 Agricultural Objectives
The District is an important agricultural area. Broad draft objectives identified during consultations, which are continued from the 2001 water level management plan (Harding 2001) are:
In the arable marshes, to maintain a sufficiently low water table to allow cultivation operations and good growth of crops, particularly in the perimeter dykes surrounding proposed new arable fields. To provide sufficient water level and quality for livestock within the grassland areas of the catchment.
Each holding, or part of a holding, may have different objectives and different water level requirements.
1.3 Nature Conservation Objectives
Water from Somerton South Pump discharges into Somerton Boat Dyke and then into Martham Broad via the navigation channel, which is connected to the River Thurne. The River Thurne is tidal, with the tidal limit approximately at Dungeons Corner, however there is anecdotal evidence that water discharged from Somerton North Pump into the River Thurne backs-up into Martham Broad.
Maintenance of these features through management of the pumping regime is an objective of the plan and a requirement of the Habitat Regulations. This objective was defined and agreed in the 2001 Water Level Management Plan (Harding 2001).
7
1.4 Objective of Other Land Uses
Flood water from Winterton-on-Sea is directed into the ditch system at Somerton in the south east of the site, which is then pumped out through Somerton South Pump. It is an objective of the IDB to continue to provide the existing service without increasing the flood risk to Winterton residents (H. Cator and S. Daniels pers. comms.).
8
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1 Location
This plan covers the Somerton catchment, located to the south of Horsey and east of the Martham WLMP areas, with the sea forming the eastern margin. This area is known as the Happisburgh to Winterton IDB HW1 and is an independently drained block of marshland on the Norfolk coast in the parishes of Somerton and Winterton. The site boundary (777.291 ha) is shown in figure 2.1.
2.2 Site Status
Figure 2.2 outlines all conservation features and designation boundaries.
Much of the area is within the Broads Authority Executive Area and the Broads Environmentally Sensitive Area.
As shown in figure 2.2 the eastern margin of the site is part of the Winterton-Horsey Dunes SSSI and SAC. The shingle beach is part of the Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA due to the breeding bird colonies. The water levels within the Winterton-Horsey Dunes SSSI and SAC have the potential to be impacted by the draining of the marshes. This area of the catchment is the focus of a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA), which is being undertaken by CH2M HILL. The SPA site is not relevant to this study.
The Somerton Catchment is adjacent to Martham Broad, part of the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes SSSI. This SSSI is a component of the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Ramsar site.
As previously stated, the Somerton South Pump discharges into Somerton Boat Dyke and then into Martham Broad via the navigation channel. Water from the North Pump could potentially enter the Broad when water backs up into the River Thurne (anecdotal evidence only). The Upper Thurne is nationally and internationally recognised under conservation legislation for biodiversity: the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes are designated nationally as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and internationally as part of the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Broadland Special Protection Area (SPA) under the EU Habitat and Birds Directives. The whole Upper Thurne SSSI was designated as a Ramsar site in 1994.
There are four County Wildlife Sites (CWS 1436, 1437, 1438 and 1440), all with wetland interests.
9
In the period covered by the 2001 water level management plan, the areas identified in figure 3 (land use) were under a 10-year ESA agreement. These agreements have now reached term on all holdings. New HLS agreements have now been awarded and are shown in figure 3 of this report.
The recommendation in the 2001 Water Level Management Plan to install gauge boards at key locations and for water levels to be monitored and recorded for water level management purposes have been undertaken. Water quality monitoring of the pumped discharges is done by the Environment Agency, but routine monitoring of the drainage dykes is still required.
10
Figure 2.2: Conservation features and designation boundaries at Somerton
11
2.3 Local Planning Authorities
Norfolk County Council The Broads Authority Great Yarmouth Borough Council
2.4 Operating Authority
Broads Inland Drainage Board, Water Management Alliance, Kettlewell House, Austin Fields Industrial Estate, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 1PH.
2.5 Owners, Occupiers and Stakeholders
OHES contacted and met with all land owners, occupiers and stakeholders in order to obtain their views and thoughts on the issues relating to water management and how they would like to see the catchment managed in the future in relation to water levels. Table 2.5 gives details of those that were contacted and met with during July to October 2013; their comments have been incorporated into the report where appropriate and were assumed by the author to be accurate.
Table 2.5: Owners, occupiers and stakeholders within the Somerton catchment (provided by Tony Goodwin Broads IDB District Engineer)
Name Role Natural England
Richard Leishman Regulation and Enforcement Team
Chris Bielby Broads Water Framework Directive Specialist Broads Authority
Andrea Kelly Senior Ecologist Environment Agency
Louise Taylor Environment Monitoring Officer and Broads Liaison Somerton Parish Council
Richard Starling Council Chairman Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Kevin Hart Head of Nature Reserves Broadland Flood Alleviation Project
Jeremy Halls Principal Ecologist at Halcrow Group Ltd (A CH2M Hill Company)
12
Broads IDB Board
Henry Cator Chairman
Simon Daniels Vice-chairman
Robin Buxton Member, Land Agent for the Burnley Group
Henry Alston Member, Agricultural manager for the Burnley Group
James Chapman* Member Somerton Poor’s Trust
Michael Lees Secretary
Trevor Jones Member Other
N Matthieson* Landowner
C H Martin* Landowner
Paul Sheales Landowner
Gordon Playford Tenant of Somerton Poor’s Trust land and Burnley Hall land
Linda & Paul Thain* Landowners
Jason Childs Independent Grazier
Winterton Parish Council Michael Blake Rely on drainage of Somerton to prevent flooding of Winterton village residents
Author of The Land Use, Ecology and Conservation of Broadland. Martin George Regional Officer in East Anglia for the Nature Conservancy from 1966 until 1990.
Conducted many years’ worth of research into the aquatic Rob Driscoll response to changing land use and water levels. Former employee of the Nature Conservancy.
*Were not consulted
13
This page has been left blank intentionally
14
3. LAND USES
The current land uses and HLS agreements within the plan boundary are shown in figure 3 (updated from figure 3 in the 2001 WLMP). Comments from stakeholders and landowners are included in the following sections of the report.
3.1 Conservation Interest
3.1.1 SSSI and International Interest
Martham Broad lies within the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes SSSI. This SSSI is a component of the Broads SAC / SPA / Ramsar site and is also a NNR.
The SSSI and site description and the broad international citations of the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes (last updated in 2008 by Natural England) has identified the features present, which are shown in Table 3.
A major concern for Natural England and the Broads Authority is the effect of the two Somerton pump discharges on the water quality of Martham Broad, which is part of the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Ramsar sites. Natural England and the Broads Authority believe that the discharges are significantly affecting the conservation status of the wetland features of the site.
Martham Broad is assessed as being in Favourable Condition and continuing to support water plants that other Broads have lost due to poor water quality, such as holly-leaved n aiad (Nationally Rare) and charophytes (including five BAP or section 41 priority listed species). The caterpillar of the threatened swallowtail butterfly is dependent on the population of milk parsley found in the fens around Martham Broad, which is sensitive to changes in salinity. The Broad is also an important location for over wintering wildfowl.
There is however a risk that species such as these will disappear if salinity and ochre levels within the Broad increases (NWT, NE and BA pers. comm.) due to their low tolerances of poor water quality. There is increased pressure on the catchment to retain water within the drainage ditches and ensure that ochre and salinity are not pulled in from the surrounding soils and the underlying saline via lower level drainage to protect the SAC (Holman and Hiscock, 1998., Simpson et al., 2011., Harding and Smith, 2002).
15
Table 3: International features of the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes (last updated in 2008) Code Upper Thurne cSAC features
H3140 Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.; Calcium-rich nutrient-poor lakes, lochs and pools
Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type H3150 vegetation; Naturally nutrient-rich lakes or lochs which are often dominated by pondweed
H6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae); Purple moor-grass meadows
H7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs; Very wet mires often identified by an unstable `quaking` surface
H7210 Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae; Calcium-rich fen dominated by great fen sedge (saw sedge)*
H7230 Alkaline fens; Calcium-rich springwater-fed fens
H91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae); Alder woodland on floodplains*
S1016 Vertigo moulinsiana; Desmoulin`s whorl snail
S1355 Lutra lutra; otter
S1903 Liparis loeselii; fen orchid
S4056 Anisus vorticulus; little whorlpool ram's-horn snail SPA features
A021 Botaurus stellaris; great bittern (Breeding)
A037 Cygnus columbianus bewickii; Bewick‟s swan (Non-breeding)
A038 Cygnus cygnus; whooper swan (Non-breeding)
A050 Anas penelope; Eurasian wigeon (Non-breeding)
A051 Anas strepera; gadwall (Non-breeding)
A056 Anas clypeata; northern shoveler (Non-breeding)
16
A081 Circus aeruginosus; Eurasian marsh harrier (Breeding)
A082 Circus cyaneus; hen harrier (Non-breeding)
A151 Philomachus pugnax; ruff (Non-breeding)
A021 Botaurus stellaris; great bittern (Non-breeding)
A040 Anser brachyrhynchus; pink-footed goose (Non-breeding) Waterbird assemblage * denotes a priority natural habitat or species
3.1.2 Non-statutory Conservation Interest
Ecological surveys of the ditches within the catchment during different land use periods were undertaken over the last 40 years by Rob Driscoll (Drake et al., 2010). The surveys found that there was a loss of aquatic habitat within the ditch system, with species becoming less frequent and less abundant in ditches associated with arable production. Some of the more tolerant species (see Driscoll, 1986 and Drake et al., 2010) thrived under these conditions but then became a nuisance and had to be removed or controlled. Generally dykes that drained grazing marshes supported the richest flora and fauna whereas dykes draining arable land were impoverished (Driscoll, 1986). There was also an increase in brackish species, with a continued loss of species-rich freshwater communities (Drake et al., 2010).
An additional feature of interest is an area of land, approximately 6 ha, which is owned by the Poor’s Trust. This land is currently managed as wet grassland, which is now in an Entry Level Stewardship agreement with Natural England. The dykes within this area have been identified as being suitable habitat for wintering and breeding birds (figures 3.1.2a and 3.1.2b respectively). The Poor’s Trust would ideally like the water levels to return to the marsh level to prevent peat shrinkage and to allow the area to continue to be managed as wet grassland.
This parcel of land is rented by Mr Playford who uses the area for hay, haylage and sheep and is also rented out for shooting. Over the last 30 years this area of the catchment has remained more or less the same with some water pooling within the fields following periods of heavy rain, which has had little impact on the quality of the grass that can grow at this location (F. Playford pers. comm.).
17
Figure 3: Land use within the Somerton Catchment
18
Figure 3.1.2a: Wintering Bird distributions and good ditches for wildlife. Blue triangle denotes good ditches [Source: Broads Authority. Reproduced from the Ordance Survey mapping with the permission of the controller of HMSO Crown Copyright. All rights reserved]
Figure 3.1.2b: Breeding Bird distribution and good ditches for wildlife. [Source: Broads Authority. Reproduced from the Ordance Survey mapping with the permission of the controller of HMSO Crown Copyright. All rights reserved]
19
3.1.3 Conservation Aims
The conservation of Martham Broad as part of the Upper Thurne SAC / SPA is a European process that cannot be avoided. Natural England, the Broads Authority and Norfolk Wildlife Trust are keen to work with all land owners and managers to prevent damage to Martham Broads and to ensure the protection of the SAC and SSSI features, for which the flow of fresh water is critical.
Natural England’s conservation objectives for Martham Broad are to maintain the habitats and geological features (outlined below) in favourable condition status, with particular reference to any dependent component special interest features (habitats, vegetation types, species, species assemblages etc.) for which the land is designated (SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar).
Habitat types represented (BAP categories) Standing Open Water and Canals Fen, Marsh and Swamp
Geological features (Geological site types) Not applicable
The following objectives have also been outlined by Natural England [Conservation Objectives and Definitions of Favourable Condition for Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes, March 2008]:
Ensure sediment loads through changes in land use (particularly over- drainage (ochre)) are kept at a level that will not influence biological communities. Stable conductivity levels appropriate to lake type (Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere have targets of 2400 μS/cm and <4000μS/cm respectively). It is assumed that Martham Broad will have a similar target.
In regard of the ditch system within the Somerton catchment Natural England have identified the following key aspects:
Maintain both shallow and deep water to allow diverse plant and invertebrate assemblages to develop. The levels characteristic of the site, in relation to both freeboard and water depth, should be maintained. High water levels are particularly important in spring and early summer for semi-aquatic riparian invertebrates.
20
3.2 Agriculture
It was the wish of Burnley Estate and the tenant farmer to revert a number of fields from grassland to arable. 500 acres of the 2,000 acre estate is arable, following the ploughing of the ESA grassland (H. Alston, pers. comm.). In order to make these fields viable for cultivation the water levels within the ditches would need to be dropped to the pre 2002 level, which will increase the freeboard and uncover field drains that are currently submerged (Alston and Buxton, pers. comm.). It has been suggested that a maximum freeboard of 45 - 75cm1 would be acceptable for farming reasons (H. Cator and S. Daniels pers. comm.). The substrata will need to be determined for the presence of iron pyrite deposits in the soil, which on being drained will result in ochre release into the dyke water. With ochre release acidification also occurs. If water levels within the dyke are below sea level or the dykes cut into the saline crag at any point then saline intrusion will occur if the dyke cuts through any confining layers (Simpson et al., 2009).
The lowering of dyke levels is in addition to the 0.2m reduction in water levels that was requested and subsequently carried out in April 2013. Prior to the lowering of the water levels flooding occurred regularly across all fields during the winter (H. Alston pers. comm.).
The issues of salinity and ochre were raised during consultation, which may impact land owned by the Burnley Estate, as well as land downstream.
It has been suggested that changes in land use from grazing marsh to arable and the improvements in land drainage associated with such changes could and have in the past adversely affected the quality of water in the dykes that drain the area and enter the Broad system via the pumps (Driscoll 1999). Holman and Hiscock (1998) have also shown that saline intrusion is a major issue and any reduction in levels will cause greater intrusion.
3.3 Flood Defence
Among the IDB’s major responsibilities are their rate payers, for whom the flooding of built up areas is a key issue. There has historically been a problem with getting flood water from Winterton-on-Sea to the pumps through the ditch system. Keeping ditch levels high will reduce flood storage within the catchment, which may impact Winterton-on-Sea, however, as dyke levels have been higher in the past this may not be so much of an issue. Generally, climate modelling suggests that we are likely to experience wetter winters and drier summers but with intense storms, which the current Somerton system is not designed for (H. Cator and S. Daniels pers. comm.), however low water levels are unlikely
1 It is assumed that this suggestion of freeboard is based on past IDB experience.
21
to help flooding in urban areas where hard standing contributes significantly to surface water flooding (C. Whiting pers. comm.).
There have been very few issues with flooding over the last decade or so, with the main problems being due to flooding from the sea or the road drainage system (M. Blake pers. comm.). Previous flooding issues due to ponds located close to the church have now been resolved and no further problems have occurred since (M. Blake pers. comm.). Winterton- on-Sea Parish Council however, are not aware of any current actions at Somerton that may impact flooding and feel that they have very little involvement with IDB decisions (M. Blake pers. comm.).
An embankment has been constructed along the eastern bank of the river as part of the flood defence improvements for Compartment 6A (West Somerton) undertaken as part of the BFAP. The embankment levels were set back to the 1990s levels which are designed to last until 2027. The embankment was widened and slackened with a reed buffer to try and prevent erosion of the embankment toe. The embankment is monitored for settlement and leakage in the winter, with regular cutting of the vegetation during annual condition surveys. It is important that the water levels within the dykes that run parallel with the defence are kept as high as possible to prevent slippage of the embankment.
3.4 Services
There was no available information regarding services. No issues were raised during the 2001 WLMP or during consultation with the Board and other interested parties.
3.5 Other Land Uses
An independent grazier who operates across the catchment requires a constant and stable water level and has issues with getting stock in and out if water levels are low within the dykes. Salinity is an issue within the catchment which is exacerbated during the summer when rainfall is lower, or when the water levels near the pumps are dropped. Ideally water levels would be kept high during the summer.
22
4. HYDROLOGY
4.1 Current Hydrological Function
There are two main water management systems in the District; Somerton North Pump and Somerton South Pump. There is also a third system, controlled by the Auxiliary pump. Figure 4.1 outlines the location of the pumping stations and their flow patterns.
Somerton North drains the northern and central part of the district, with water arising along the dune margins in the east and flows west towards the pump. Water is collected from the marshes and dunes by three IDB main drains that trend east-west. There is a new Soke Dyke along the foot of the Hundred Stream embankment, which was built as part of the flood alleviation project and a second IDB drain approximately 200m further south. Dykes between these two drains flow to the North Pump.
The third drain runs from Decoy Wood to the south of Somerton Holmes. All three of the IDB main dykes are connected by an IDB drain that runs north-south, on the west side of the Horsey Road. Water arrives at the North Pump via the Hundred Stream Soke Dyke and the catchwater drain along Martham Broad Wall. The pump discharges into Hundred Stream, which feeds into the River Thurne, downstream of Martham Broad.
Slightly fresher water rises from springs in the south and is removed from the system via the South Pump. Water is delivered to the South Pump by the IDB’s Commissioner’s Drain, which arises to the north of Winteron-on-Sea. Water is pumped from Somerton South Pump into Somerton Boat Dyke and then into Martham Broad, which then flows into the River Thurne.
The small area of land south of the River Thurne and adjacent to West Somerton Village is drained by an IDB drain which runs along the Martham Broad and River Thurne walls and pumped into Martham Broad by the Auxiliary Pump (figure 4.1).
There are three IDB water control structures (figure 4.1). The Somerton North water control structure (WCS029P0301-01) appears to help direct water from this point towards the North Pump. This prevents poorer quality water from entering into the South Pump and therefore into Martham Broad. The structure along the Commissioner’s Drain (Somerton Tilting Gate WCS147P0401-01), allows water levels to be controlled as required for the surrounding land use, which is currently wet woodland and grazing pasture. The third structure is along the main dyke at South Pump (WCS029P0301-02), which appears to split the two pump systems and prevent poor quality water from the north entering into the South Pump.
23
Figure 4.1: Hydrological operations within the Somerton Catchment
24
The Poor’s Trust land has three water control structures (indicated with the green stars in figure 4.1) which help to control water levels within their dykes. The main source of water into this part of the system is leakage from the river and precipitation (M. Lees pers. comm.). There are two bunds along the Soke Dyke on the western boundary, one to the north (put in by the BFAP initially to help mitigate short-term iron ochre release following the excavation of the new soke dyke) and one to the south (put in by the Poor’s Trust in September 2013), which hold back water within the Poor’s Trust dyke system and prevent water being drawn to the North and South Pumps. There is also an overflow pipe which is controlled by the Trust and can deliver water to the IDB drain to the north, which feeds into the North Pump.
4.2 Water Levels
It is believed that until recently the water table has remained relatively unchanged since 2005. Despite the very wet conditions from March 2012 to February 2013, the Parish council felt that both pumping stations worked satisfactorily although problems with heavy sediment discharge took place when the larger ‘flood pumps’ were in operation (R. Starling pers. comm.).
Monthly total pump data for both the North and South pumps from January 2012 (month 1) to May 2013 (month 17) can be found in figure 4.2, along with the total monthly precipitation for the area. Precipitation data was taken from the rain gauge at Martham, which is assumed is representative for the whole Somerton Catchment.
At a meeting, held at Somerton Village Hall on the 13th March 2013, all parties present including the Broads Drainage Board and the land agent representing the Burnley Hall Estate agreed that the current drainage operations at North and South pumps had worked satisfactorily over the past 12 months (R. Starling pers. comm.).
The water levels at Somerton South Pump main drain were set at a maximum of 98.62 (- 1.4m OD) and a minimum of 98.4 (-1.6m OD) on the gauge board giving a range of 0.2m. It was agreed that operating the South Pump within this range of levels keeps sediment discharge into the River Thurne at a minimum.
2 The IDBs use 100m as datum, which is 0.00m OD to avoid the use of negative signs. 25
Figure 4.2.1: Pump and precipitation data at Somerton North and South
The water levels at Somerton North Pump (in 2012) were set at a maximum of 98.6 (- 1.4m OD3) and a minimum of 98.4 (-1.6m OD). Again, it was agreed that this range kept sediment discharge from the North Pump into the Hundred Stream to a minimum. Ochre and salinity levels within the IDB main drain to the pump are still very high, whilst the Hundred Stream is very ochrous, especially during the summer months.
In April a request was submitted to the Board to lower the dyke water levels in the north by 0.2m, due to abnormally high rainfall in the preceding months, to allow access to farmland, which was granted. Photograph 4.2.1 taken by OHES on the 23rd July 2013 of the gauge board directly at the North Pump (which the pump levels are set to) clearly shows the reduction in water levels.
Up until this point when the water levels were dropped the Norfolk Wildlife Trust had no issues at Martham Broads, however following the reduction in water levels they subsequently reported issues with ochre and saline water entering the dykes and the Broad. It is unlikely that the dropping of levels at the North pump will have caused the water quality in Martham Broad to have dropped as the Hundred Stream has been highly ochrous for decades (C. Whiting pers. comm.). It may be possible that water is backing up into the Broads but this would need further investigation through monitoring.
3 Water levels obtained from the Levels Survey (First Issue: June 2013) undertaken by BAMNuttal on behalf of Broads IDB. This survey was undertaken using the conventional datum; the gauge boards were set using conventional levelling methods. 26
Photo 4.2.1: Gauge board directly next to Somerton North Pump (27/07/2013, A. Pitcher)
Photo 4.2.2: Somerton South Pump gauge board at Horsey Road Bridge (03/10/2013, A. Pitcher) 27
Photograph 4.2.2 taken at the South Pump Horsey Road gauge board shows the water level to be at 98.6 (-1.4m OD), which is at the uppermost limit of the current range of water levels (98.40 (-1.6m OD) to 98.6 (-1.40m OD) on the gauge board), however, there are currently no officially agreed water levels.
A request has since been put in to lower the water levels to their pre-2002 level so that perimeter ditches of arable land (see figure 4.2.2) will have a sufficient freeboard for drainage and therefore arable production. The majority of these dykes are drained by the North Pump; however there are some in the South Pump catchment, which would require water levels to be dropped at South Pump in order for a sufficient hydraulic gradient to be created.
The lowering of water levels, to allow arable production to be possible, would result in the following operating levels:
North Pump: maximum of 98.4 (-1.6m OD) and a minimum of 98.2 (-1.8m OD) (T. Goodwin pers. comm.). South Pump: maximum of 98.0 (-1.5m OD) and a minimum of 98.5 (-2.00m OD) summer and winter, which are similar to levels in the 1990s (T. Goodwin pers. comm.).
A levels survey was undertaken by BAMNutall for Water Management Alliance in June 2013, which was undertaken to GPS. The gauge boards which are used to set the pump levels were installed using conventional levelling methods, which has resulted in some discrepancies between levels. Therefore the actual levels at North Pump are -1.85m OD to -2.05m OD. All levels referred to in this report relate to the Water Management Alliance datum but are in fact 250mm higher than the actual ordnance datum.
Conservation groups (Natural England, the Norfolk Wildlife Trust and the Broads Authority) and Somerton Parish Council would like the water levels to be retained at the levels prior to lowering in April, which were (R. Starling pers. comm.):
North Pump: maximum of 98.6 (-1.4m OD) and a minimum of 98.40 (-1.6m OD) South Pump: maximum of 98.6 (-1.4m OD) and a minimum of 98.40 (-1.6m OD)
The previously stated operating levels were found to be suitable for ensuring the water entering Martham Broad was of a suitable quality so as not to be detrimental to the site (R. Starling pers. comm.), as well as allowing the land owned by the Poor’s Trust to be managed as wet grassland, with the hope of entering into an HLS agreement with Natural England (M. Lees pers. comm.). With the water levels as they currently are, with the possibility of them being lowered further, means that the Poor’s Trust are unable to manage the site as wet grassland (M. Lees pers. comm.). There is also the issue of
28
deteriorated water quality within the dykes, which has the possibility of entering into Martham Broad (discussed in greater detail in section 5).
Since meeting with members of the Poor’s Trust in July they have since increased the height of the bund to the south of their land and adjusted the operating level of the overflow pipe, which has increased water levels and therefore water depths within their three dykes. The Poor’s Trust are now completely in control of their own water levels (via the overflow pipe) and are no longer dependent on the main pumps (M. Lees pers. comm.), however, it is uncertain whether they would have enough water during drought years or how much the residence time would adversely affect water quality.
Tenant farmers that harvest haylage have not been affected by the lowering of water levels within the catchment, however in terms of grazing; the water levels and water quality are not suitable for livestock, particularly during the summer months (J. Childs pers. comm.).
Any changes in water levels and pumping regimes need to be assented by Natural England, with a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) undertaken by the IDB to demonstrate that any proposed actions will not have a detrimental impact on the SSSI and SAC. Previously the IDB have not had to undertake an assessment for Natural England in relation to everyday water level management (S. Daniels and H. Cator pers. comm.) but they were consulted during the development of the original WLMP in 2001. This was however before the designation of the SAC, which took place in 2005.
Communication and consultation between the different user groups within the catchment is key to achieving water levels that meets the requirements of all parties and protects Martham Broad and the other conservation sites.
29
Figure 4.2.2: Arable ditches proposed for water level reduction 30
4.3 Impacts on Ecology
Over the past 4 decades there has been a large volume of data collected in relation to changing dyke water levels (through changes in land use) and their impacts on the local ecology, within the Somerton catchment, undertaken by Rob Driscoll et al.
In the past, due to the susceptibility of the soils to acidification, successive owners of the Burnley Hall estate have considered it prudent to maintain a high water table and manage most of the marshland as unimproved pasture (George 1994). In 1981 the drainage network in the catchment was improved by replacing most of the subsidiary dykes with plastic under-drainage pipes and the main drains re-profiled and deepened in readiness for arable production (Driscoll 1983). Ditch management in arable land was found to be detrimental to the aquatic plants and invertebrates, resulting in an impoverished community (Drake 2011). The likely damaging factors are low water levels at the bottom of deep ditches (leading to poor water quality, and narrow water width), frequent cleaning, increased deposition of iron oxides in peat soils, and the absence of edge disturbance by grazing animals (Drake 2011).
The lowering of water levels is also likely to cause the soil to shrink, which may in turn create a negative feedback system as water levels may need to be reduced further in order to maintain the required freeboard for arable production (George 1994).
At both the South and North pumps, the larger pumps greatly increase the drains flow rates and, in effect, ‘drag’ bottom sediment from the main drains and connecting dykes to the pumps. The higher flow rates which will be produced through the lowering of the water levels are likely to cause more disturbance of the bottom sediment during the autumn and winter months owing to there being less aquatic vegetation and reed growth in the dykes, which could be deposited into the SSSI and SAC (R. Starling pers. comm.).
4.4 Maintenance Responsibilities
Water Management Alliance (on behalf of the Broads IDB) is responsible for the two Somerton Pumps and the main drains and IDB water control structures identified in figure 4.1.
Other water control structures and infrastructure in the side dykes away from the main IDB drains (such as those on the Poor’s Trust land) are the responsibility of the land owner. Occupiers are also responsible for management of non-IDB watercourses.
31
This page has been left blank intentionally
32
5. WATER QUALITY
Ochre (and related acidification) and salinity are both issues within the Somerton Catchment in common with the majority of catchments along the east Norfolk coast. The two issues are independent of one another although the high salinity levels are one of the drivers of ochre production (F. Wells & The Burnley Group Partnership 2013). Both issues are discussed in the following section.
Other issues of Nitrogen and Phosphorus impacts from arable production may also be an issue but are outside the remit of this study, however they could impact water quality within Martham Broad.
5.1 Ochre
Ochre is formed by solids (precipitates) of iron (Fe), and is the result of a combination of soil, chemical and biological processes, where ferrous ion (Fe2+) in solution is oxidised to form a precipitate of ferric oxides and hydroxides. This produces a reddening similar to rust. The chemical process is outlined below:
2+ - 4Fe + O2 + 8OH + 2H2O > 4Fe(OH)3
The zone of new ochre formation is at the boundary between aerated and waterlogged soils. Therefore when drainage is significantly improved (to enable arable production) resulting in a reduction in level of the water table and the exposure of a large store of previously unavailable iron from the previously waterlogged soils; ochre is produced, resulting in an orange-brown staining in the water column (Harding and Smith 2002). Pyritic ochre is likely to be the typical form in the study area, as in the Brograve Catchment, as it is favoured in soils produced in marine environments, where high concentrations of iron and sulphur are laid down under anaerobic conditions (Harding and Smith 2002). Acidification and reducing conditions are two additional harmful “products” of the drainage process, which have their own environmental consequences (Harding and Smith 2002), which in turn are likely to impact plants, amphibians and invertebrates.
Research summarised by Bartlett (1961) shows that iron oxides deposited on the root surface and within root tissue can cause root cell division and growth to cease in several crops including garlic, leek, sunflower, alfalfa, pea and wheat.
Aquatic plants, attempting to grow in sediments covered in ochre or in waters where there are high concentrations of toxic ferrous iron face similar problems. Aquatic plants also face the problem of ochre solids in the water column. It is often present as a dense, glutinous and opaque sediment. Coatings of ochre on the leaves of aquatic plants reduce
33
the light available for photosynthesis. Suspended ochre in the water can produce very high turbidity, further blocking out the light. As with toxicity, plants vary in their ability to tolerate this, so that progressively higher levels of ochre will result in progressively poorer aquatic plant communities (Harding and Smith 2002) and invertebrates (Driscoll, 1986).
It is suggested that for invertebrates, ochre sedimentation completely alters the nature of the stream bed habitat and also affects feeding and attachment mechanisms and can be directly ingested. Birds are unlikely to suffer direct toxicity or to be adversely affected by ochre precipitates, but will be severely affected indirectly, particularly by changes to aquatic plant communities brought about by turbidity. Water bodies with little or no aquatic vegetation support few waterfowl in winter, when birds depend upon plant material for food.
Increasing iron concentrations in a given site over time will lead to a progressive loss of the more sensitive species. Species richness and ecological value will decline (Harding and Smith 2002).
5.2 Salinity
Freshwater ditches are defined as having a conductivity of < 2,000 μS cm-1. Conductivity readings of > 2,000 μS cm-1 indicate either brackish or highly polluted water. Brackish water conductivity readings typically range from c 2,000 to 15,000 μS cm-1 (Natural England). Freshwater dykes are of particular conservation value.
Holman and Hiscock (1993) indicated that in the eastern Broads area, where the water table was below sea level through drainage pumps, dykes could cut into the salt water aquifer and become salinised if the dyke beds were not sealed or the inflow of fresh groundwater is more saline. Salinity levels can be increased further during the summer when evaporation rates are at their highest. This problem is enhanced in dykes with low water levels.
5.3 Site History and Current Situation
The work undertaken by Rob Driscoll et al. over the 4 decades has also investigated the influence of land use and water levels on the water quality of the dyke system. Prior to the deep drainage of the area in the early 1980’s, when the land was pasture and the water levels relatively high, data indicates that the dykes were only slightly brackish (M. Driscoll pers. comm.). However, following changes in dyke water levels during the 1970’s and 1980’s due to conversion of land to arable, it was found that salinity levels were higher when water levels were lower due to increased seepage (Driscoll, 1986). The lowering of
34
the water levels within the catchment to the bottom of the trapezoidal profile, also led to increased oxidation of the substrate and the release of iron oxide / ochre (Drake 2011).
It is thought that when the main ditches were deepened, they broke through the clay liner into the salt water aquifer below. The depletion of the fresh water table due to increased pumping and the deepening of dykes allowed more saline water to enter the dykes from the salt water table. The quality of water has been thought to be so poor in the past that fresh water had to be piped to the fields as the dyke water was considered unsuitable for livestock to drink (Drake 2011).
The Water Level Management Plan in 2001 identified a shift from freshwater to brackish dykes, with both pumping stations maintaining water levels below sea level, therefore causing saltwater incursion to occur due to upwelling from the saltwater aquifer (Harding 2001).
Conductivity readings were collected throughout the catchment by OHES on the 3rd and 4th October using a HANNA multi range conductivity meter, the results of which can be found in figure 5.3. The readings revealed that there are very few dykes within the catchment that would be classed as freshwater, those dykes that has conductivity readings of < 2,000 μS cm-1 are located in the south east of the site, where freshwater springs are located. These locations are part of the South Pump dyke system.
The majority of dykes would be classed as brackish. Water along the dykes associated with North Pump were between 4,001 and 22,000 μS cm-1. The reading taken directly at North Pump and at its outflow into Hundred Stream was between 6,001 and 8,000 μS cm-1. Readings taken along the dykes associated with South Pump were between 2,001 and 6,000 μS cm-1.
Many of the main dykes and those surrounding the pumps contained ochre. Ochre was particularly bad along the main IDB drains that feed into the North Pump, as illustrated in photo 5.3. There was little aquatic vegetation within the dykes that contained ochre; plants that were present were covered in a layer of glutinous and opaque sediment, as described in section 5.1. The main dyke associated with South Pump did not contain any ochre and contained clear water with a good level of aquatic vegetation. The Burnley Estate and tenant farmers do not have a problem with the current water quality of the dykes as they do not require this water for abstraction for crop irrigation.
35
Figure 5.3: Conductivity readings taken at Somerton on the 3rd and 4th October (μS cm-1) 36
During the consultation with the Poor’s Trust in July 2013 the depth of water within the dykes was extremely low, resulting in ochre and high salinity readings, resulting in the site being in a very poor condition. The BFAP constructed some bunds within the soke dyke in spring 2011 to help retain water levels within the Poor’s Trust land holding. The Poor’s Trust have been in control of their own water levels since they constructed a bund just to the south of their land and took control of a small water control pipe within a perimeter ditch in September 2013. They now have good water levels in their dykes, which are of good quality, with water lilies in the Soke Dyke (M. Lees pers. comm.).
Martham Broad requires very low nutrients and ochre levels, which have been steadily increasing in recent years (Harding 2001). Natural England believes that the maintenance of discharges from Somerton South Pump, which has the better water quality, is of critical importance for the maintenance of the international features of the Broad. A reading taken at the River Thurne, upstream of Martham Broad and reading directly at South Pump were 3,000 and 2,200 μS cm-1 respectively and above the 2,000 μS cm-1 threshold identified by Natural England for water entering Martham Broad (Harding 2001).
Photo 5.3: Ochre along the main dyke at North Pump (23rd July 2013, A. Pitcher)
Martham Broad would be considered slightly brackish. Environment Agency data shows that conductivity levels have been consistent over recent years at around 5000 μScm-1. If water quality were to be deteriorate as a result of changes in water levels at Somerton
37
then there is potential for it to impact the water quality of Martham Broad. The Environment Agency monitoring programme is designed to detect any changes in water quality. At the time of writing, no significant changes have been recorded in Martham Broad water quality. The current pumping regime means that there can be sudden influxes of pumped water into receiving watercourses. This can create issues within the receiving watercourse, especially if the conductivity levels behind the pump are very high or dissolved oxygen levels are very low within the dyke system (L. Taylor pers. comm.). From the conductivity readings taken by OHES in October 2013 it appears that the water quality entering Martham Broad is more saline than was perhaps thought, which could have detrimental impacts on the unique flora and fauna that reside there, which suggests that lowering levels at the South Pump could increase salinity levels.
There also appear to be some turbidity issues within Martham Broad, which is thought to stem from a backflow of water from North Pump (R. Starling pers. comm.). Investigation into the issues by the Environment Agency was carried out following reports of turbid water but the results were inconclusive. There are concerns that the activities within the catchment are preventing the Broads within the catchment from meeting their WFD objectives (L.Taylor pers comm). It has been recommended that monitoring of the Hundred Stream is undertaken to determine if water does back up into the Broads and to see how much lateral mixing occurs (C. Whiting pers. comm.).
The lowering of water levels within the perimeter dykes of arable land is likely to increase salinity, which will in turn promote ochre release. This could greatly impact the conductivity of the ditches in the south east of the site, which are currently classed as freshwater dykes, but could become permanently brackish if salt water incursion and evaporation increase salinity levels, which may in turn result in ochre production. As this area of the site is drained by South Pump, it could decrease the quality of water entering into the River Thurne and Martham Broad.
It was suggested in 2001 that it would be beneficial for dyke water levels within key areas to be increased, which would prevent incursions of poor water quality and improve dilution (Harding 2001). This was suggested when the dyke levels were lower than they are currently and at the level that has been requested by the Burnley Estate and resident farmer. It is therefore likely that if water levels were reduced to the pre-2002 level that the issues facing the catchment now would be exacerbated.
It is possible, now that the clay liner of the main ditches have been breached, that if water levels in one of these drains is allowed to rise then salt water would enter into any dykes that were below the new level (Harding 2001). Therefore water levels within all of the dykes will need to be constant in order to prevent low level dykes or those within other Districts becoming more saline.
38
6. WATER LEVEL AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
6.1 Water Level Management Objectives and Recommendations
This section defines the water level management regime for the Somerton Catchment by setting water level objectives.
The following water levels are proposed for the Somerton Catchment:
South Pump water level: maximum of 98.6 (-1.4m OD) and a minimum of 98.4 (- 1.6m OD). North Pump water level: maximum of 98.6 (-1.4m OD) and a minimum of 98.4 (- 1.6 m OD).
Due to the conductivity readings taken at South Pump and within the River Thurne upstream of Martham Broad is it proposed not to lower water levels within dykes that are drained by South Pump from their current level as this would result in increased salinity and ochre production which would be detrimental to the SSSI and SAC and a Habitat Regulations breach.
The number of studies undertaken in the Upper Thurne show that a reduction in water levels causes saline intrusion, as well as ochre release, which can result in the acidification of water bodies (C. Whiting pers. comm.). A reduction of water levels in the north for arable production would only exacerbate the existing poor water quality and reducing them in the south will cause an increase in salinity and ochre (C. Whiting pers. comm.). The interaction between water from the two pumped systems and Martham Broad is unknown; therefore considerable damage could occur should highly saline and turbid water be pumped from Somerton. It is therefore proposed to reinstate the water levels those which existed prior to their lowering in April 2013, as a permanent lowering of levels has the potential to have a negative impact on Martham Broad and the River Thurne.
Although it was felt that following an initial flushing of ochre during the setting of the newer minimum level that the water would run eventually run clear, ground investigations would be required to assess the hydro chemical make-up of the soils to see if there are any iron rich deposits that would oxidise if water levels were dropped any lower at the North Pump.
Ideally water levels at both pumps would need to be kept at the maximum for as long as possible, particularly during the summer to prevent salinity levels increasing due to evaporation and to promote dilution and then drop the levels to the minimum water level as and when required for arable production.
39
The Soke Dyke that runs parallel with the flood defence embankment requires high water levels to prevent slippage of the embankment. As this dyke is drained by the North Pump it would therefore be subject to lowered water levels required for arable production. The recommended operating levels would maintain the required water levels to prevent slippage and therefore prevent damage to the flood defence embankment.
From an ecological perspective, salinity levels within the Hundred Stream are already too high and there needs to be consideration of how the poor water quality of the River Thurne can be addressed (C. Whiting pers. comm.), which would likely be exacerbated should the requested arable water levels be granted. If this water were found to mix with Martham Broad water it will adversely affect the charophyte and macrophyte assemblages (C. Whiting pers. comm.).
There are a number of mitigation options that could be undertaken to help further reduce the impact of the poor water quality of the Somerton catchment on Martham Broad and the River Thurne, which are discussed below.
There is the potential to leave uncut sections of vegetation along the main dykes at key locations to help trap sediment and prevent it from being pumped into Martham Broad (which has previously been suggested by the Parish Council); however this would reduce flood storage conveyance so may not be possible.
The Broads IDB are looking into the feasibility of modifying telemetry at Somerton South Pump to cease pumping when conductivity readings reach a certain level, which would be beneficial to ensuring the quality of the water that is discharged into the River Thurne is suitable, however the maximum threshold would need to be discussed with Natural England, the Broads Authority and Norfolk Wildlife Trust before a decision is made (the Broads IDB have suggested a maximum of 10,000 μS cm-1). Salinity levels for the telemetry system would need to be nearer 2,000 μS cm-1 as the levels within the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes SSSI and component of the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Ramsar sites are mostly unfavourable with salinity levels much higher than the guideline levels (C. Whiting pers. comm.). A balance between discharge limits and flood risk levels would need to be taken into consideration.
Any issues of the drawdown of water at Winterton Dunes are being investigated as part of the Habitat Regulations Assessment, however it has been suggested (T. Goodwin pers. comm.) that the installation of water control structures may help mitigate these issues.
The Burnley Estate are keen to investigate the option of creating an ochre settlement lagoon in the north of the catchment to help improve the quality and reduce the turbidity of water that is pumped from the catchment into Martham Broad and Hundred Stream. It has been estimated that ochre waste in the settlement lagoon would not need to be dealt
40
with for at least 5 if not 7 years, when it is anticipated that academic research will have become widely implemented at farm scale (Wells. F and The Burnley Group Partnership 2013). A treatment plant for ochre, pH and salinity would be the only way of ensuring water quality is maintained, particularly as saline intrusion is only likely to increase due to sea level rise (C. Whiting pers. comm.).
The storage of winter water of a suitable quality (rain or fresh groundwater) was suggested (Harding 2001) for the blocking of poor water quality. This has not yet been created, however, if the former coastal wetland strip, which existed prior to 1983 on the landward side of the dunes between Winterton and Horsey was reinstated then this could act as a winter storage area for rainwater (as suggested by Somerton Parish Council in March 2013). The Upper Thurne area is also shown as a priority area for coastal flood risk projects as those that may come through making space for water options in NELMS (see NELMS targeting maps, June 2014 on Natural England website). It may also be possible to transfer / redirect excess fresh water from Winterton-on-Sea following heavy rainfall to this area for storage, rather than it being gravity fed into the Commissioner’s Drain to the South Pump. This water can then be used to dilute saline water within the catchment before it is gravity fed to the South Pump.
6.2 Summary of Recommendations
The following is a summary of mitigation options and recommendations for the Somerton catchment:
Reinstate the water levels prior to April 2013 (levels stated in section 6.1). Investigations into the hydro chemical make-up of the soils in relation to iron rich deposits. Maintain water levels at the maximum for as long as possible, particularly during the summer. Leave uncut sections of vegetation along key dykes to help trap sediment. Conductivity telemetry pumping systems (which are being investigated by the Broads IDB) to prevent highly saline water entering Martham Broads. Ochre settlement lagoons (which are being investigated by the Burnley Estate). The storage of winter water to block poor water quality, such as a coastal wetland strip. Transfer / redirect excess fresh water from Winteron-on-Sea following heavy rainfall to dilute saline water at the South Pump.
41
This page has been left blank intentionally
42
7. CONSTRAINTS AND IMPACTS ON ADJACENT GROUND
7.1 Constraints
The IDB are obliged to ensure that their activities do not have a significant effect on the special features at the site. A Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) is currently being undertaken by CH2M Hill to assess possible impact of the proposed changes to water levels on the SSSI and SAC. Although the findings of the HRA have not yet been finalised for reference in this report, research suggests that the lowering of water levels within Somerton is not feasible at the moment (C. Whiting, pers. comm.)
7.2 Impacts on Adjacent Ground
In the case of Martham Broad, the River Thurne and the Winterton Dunes the Board must fulfil their legal responsibilities under the Habitats Directive and ensure that these sites are protected. Due to the impacts of water levels for one land use on those of another land use within the catchment, compliance with Habitat Regulations may not allow a compromise to be reached.
The balance between agriculture and conservation is key, however, the current water quality situation means that it would not be feasible to lower the water levels in the District to the requested level suitable for arable production due to the impacts on the European protected sites.
43
This page has been left blank intentionally
44
8. ALTERATIONS TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES
Operating levels of Somerton Tilting Gate would remain the same as it is not proposed to lower the water levels of the dykes within the catchment of South Pump from what they are currently.
The exact function and current operating level of Somerton North water control structure will need to be returned to the level it was set at prior to the lowering of water levels in April 2013. This level would need to be determined by Water Management Alliance and the IDB.
It is proposed that the operating levels of the water control structures on the Poor’s Trust land are kept as they are to allow their conservation objective to be maintained.
As stated in section 4.2 the gauge boards that are used to set the pumping levels are not set to GPS and therefore actual water levels to OD and pumping levels are not consistent. It is therefore recommended that all of the gauge boards are re-levelled to GPS so that water levels can be referred to in OD. This would prevent confusion between levels in the future, particularly if any further topographic surveys are undertaken.
45
This page has been left blank intentionally
46
9. OTHER PROPOSED ACTION
9.1 Monitoring
Natural England and the Broads Authority undertake monitoring of the condition of the dykes with regular 10-year botanical surveys, however there is no current BA funding to repeat this. The Environment Agency installed monitoring equipment at Martham Broad as a short term response to concerns of turbidity. The equipment has since been removed. Any data will be extremely useful for ensuring that Martham Broad and the River Thurne, as well as the dyke system, are maintained at a good quality.
With a salinity telemetry system at each of the pumping stations it is likely that poor quality water will be prevented from entering Martham Broad, however this will depend on the maximum threshold that is set. It may be prudent to consider the collection of conductivity readings from the dyke system over the period of a year.
The Burnley Estate have stated that monthly water quality samples over the course of a year would be required before a decision would be made regarding the installation of an ochre settlement lagoon in the north of the catchment. In addition, pre-application guidance from the Planning Authority would be advisable.
The continuation of the monitoring of water levels within the dyke system should also be continued, with results being collated by the Broads IDB.
9.2 Further Investigations
It is recommended that water quality analysis at the two pumps, within the Hundred Stream by the outflow of Martham Broad and from within the two Broads is undertaken in order to gain an understanding of the historical salinity levels in order to develop a suitable telemetry system. It would also be prudent to take iron ochre levels into account as turbidity within the River Thurne and Martham Broad may become an issue (C. Whiting pers. comm.).
Field surveys would also be useful for assessing the mixing of water within the Hundred stream with Martham Broad as the presence of mixing between the two bodies of water has yet to be determined. Uncertainties with mixing could be assessed by undertaking fieldwork this spring and summer (C. Whiting pers. comm.).
47
This page has been left blank intentionally
48
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartlett, R.J. (1961) Iron oxidation proximate to plant roots. Soil Science, v.92 pp 372-379.
Drake, M (2011). Upper Thurne grazing marsh ditches: An analysis of data on aquatic flora and fauna, 1973 to 2009. Buglife, Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership.
Drake, C.M., Stewart, N.F., Palmer, M.A. and Kindemba, V.L (2010). The ecological status of ditch systems An investigation into the current status of the aquatic invertebrate and plant communities of grazing marsh ditch systems in England and Wales. Technical Report Volume 1. Summary of methods and major findings Buglife.
Driscoll, R.J. (1983). Broadland Dykes: The loss of an important wildlife habitat. Trans. Norfolk Norwich Nat. Soc. 26 (3) 170 – 172.
Driscoll, R.J. (1986). The effect of changes in land management on the dyke fauna at Somerton and Winterton. Trans. Norfolk Norwich Nat. Soc. 27 (3) 215 – 220.
George, M (1994). The land use, ecology and conservation of Broadland.
Harding, M and Smith, K (2002). Ochre in the Brograve catchment, causes and cures.
Holman, I, P., Hiscock, K, M (1998). Land drainage and saline intrusion in the coastal marshes of northeast Norfolk. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 31, 47-62.
Simpson, T., Holman, I.P. and Rushton, K (2011). Drainage ditch–aquifer interaction with special reference to surface water salinity in the Thurne catchment, Norfolk, UK. Water and Environment Journal, 25 (1), 116-128
Wells. F and The Burnley Group Partnership (2013). The Somerton Catchment Potential Ochre Settlement Project. Meeting notes.
49