IN THE MATTER OF THE WATER RESOURCES ACT 1991 AND THE INQUIRY INTO AN APPLICATION BY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TO RENEW ITS ABSTRACTION LICENCE RELATING TO THE CANDOVER ABSTRACTION SCHEME AND TO FOUR OTHER ABSTRACTION LICENCES ON THE RIVER ITCHEN AND THE RIVER TEST PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCES: RSA/WR/00016/17/18 A STATEMENT OF CASE BY THE HON. MARK BARING AND THE HON ZAM BARING ON BEHALF OF THE BARING FAMILY of THE GRANGE ESTATE, NORTHINGTON. 1) Introduction Our family have been riparian owners of much of the Candover Brook for a number of generations. We are extremely concerned about the decline in its environmental condition resulting inter alia from over- abstraction and fully support the Environment Agency as regards the extent of and causes for the deterioration. However, in our view the best safeguard for the future health of the stream and compliance with the obligations of its SAC status would be the permanent decommissioning of the existing abstraction infrastructure to prevent its ever being used for any purpose in the future. To the fullest extent possible we intend to use our position as landowners to resist the installation of the pipeline through our property which would be required to continue abstraction from the Candover borehole. Further to this overall position on the Candover Scheme we would like to raise a few more points on all the licences under inquiry which we believe have not been touched upon in the representations made by both Guy Linley-Adams on behalf of the Salmon and Trout Conservation and WWF UK, and by Martin Burton on behalf of the Upper Itchen Initiative, both of which we strongly support and commend to you. 2) Statutory duty of Southern Water We are exasperated by Southern Water’s unconscionable dismissal of their environmental legal duties and Corporate responsibilities in this case. They choose either to wilfully neglect or trivialise the weight they attribute towards their environmental duties wholly in favour of their duties to supply water to society. OFWAT considers ‘resilience’ to include environmental sustainability, but the company interpret this without balance or measure. Their ‘least cost’ model is out of step with emerging abstraction policy from Government, OFWAT guidance and the law. In particular we object to Southern Water’s ‘special conditions’, whereby they appear to accept licence changes so long as they have no bearing on their business, but require special conditions to be written into the licences to over-ride those licence changes when they actually effect the company. Unethical as that approach to environmental protection is, it is especially unacceptable given the company are a ‘competent authority’ as defined in Regulation 6(1) of the Habitats Regulations. Southern Water may argue their position FOLLY HILL, ITCHEN STOKE, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE SO24 9TF TELEPHONE: 01962 779668 Email: [email protected] on the Itchen and Candover licence changes at this Inquiry is justifiable on purely their commercial and corporate business plan, but it is incompatible with and contradictory to their statutory role under the Regulations. The special conditions are unlawful and ridiculous. The company’s approach is irresponsible and negligent of their duties. To highlight through this Inquiry their failure to honour their environmental duties would help the wider water sector wake up to that need and might even make the Secretary of State examine the case for creating an independent authority to oversee and determine the management of the nation’s water resources rather than leaving the exploitation of this precious resource in the hands of private companies who at times are bound to be conflicted. 3) The proposed operation of the Candover Scheme We also find fault with Southern Water’s approach to the Inquiry regarding their proposed operation of the Candover licence. It appears to us that the company are wishing to evade due process and obtain de facto permission or even explicit authorisation for their proposal through the Inquiry process. Southern Water sketch out their proposal and invite the Secretary of State (SoS) to somehow instruct the Agency to grant that scheme. We are not sure if the SoS has such powers, but either way he must not do that. This Inquiry is no substitute for the due process of applying for and justifying a new abstraction licence – there is no Environmental Impact Assessment nor application of the tests of the Habitats Regulations to the proposal; there is no planning permission, permit to discharge, or public consultation. As land and river owners we have explicitly informed Southern Water that we object to their proposed use of the licence and construction of a pipeline across our land. Southern Water do not even own the licence. In fact, there are almost no details at all, just ambiguous ambitions, none of which are sound reason for the Agency to not change their own licence at this time. If you are minded to recommend that the SoS upholds Southern Water’s objection to the licence changes we urge you to ensure that a strong distinction is made between over-riding the Agency’s licence changes on technical grounds (whatever those could be?) and inadvertently endorsing Southern Water’s vague proposals for their scheme. The two things are very different. Indeed, we argue that Southern Water’s proposals for the licence and the scheme are outside the scope of this Inquiry altogether. 4) Southern Water’s inconsistent position Southern Water’s approach is inconsistent and irrational. They say they conditionally accept the Agency’s licence changes but actually, seek to negate the licence changes by using ‘special conditions’ when they are inconvenienced by them. They say they also accept that they will need to secure drought orders/permits in the short term while alternative sources are secured through the WRMP. That is the Agency’s position. But the company’s position is conditional that the licences incorporate all of the elements that the drought order/permits would seek to secure. In effect, the company want it both ways – drought provisions built into the licences whilst committing to seeking the exact same provisions though drought orders/permits. The fact is that drought orders/permits over-ride licence conditions, so what is in the licence should not matter if the company are truly committed to the drought order/permit route. But they seek to reduce their risks to zero at the expense of the environment. The drought order/permit provisions expressly allow the company to secure their needs but in a structured and managed way. To incorporate the exact same provisions into a licence would be negligent. FOLLY HILL, ITCHEN STOKE, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE SO24 9TF TELEPHONE: 01962 779668 Email: [email protected] In the same, inconsistent, vein they say their WRMP will secure alternative sources by 2027 at vast expense. But they seek to spend the intervening period carrying out further investigations to inform decisions in 2027 as to the sustainability of the licences that the Agency have already determined are unsustainable. In effect, the company are seeking to put off the ‘crunch’ decision that is before this Inquiry, to 2027. So, in reality they do not accept the Agency’s licence changes, despite saying so several times and, by 2027 the alternative sources should be coming on-line – at great cost. What value would these investigations make to the process of determining the sustainability of the Candover and Testwood licences, if at the same time the company have just completed (as great expense) construction of alternative sources? The co-incidental timeline makes a mockery of the company’s commitments. This tactic appears to expose the inconsistency between the company’s commitment to securing long-term solutions and yet further procrastination. 5) Shortcomings in the Environment Agency’s protection of the Itchen Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest a) Habitats Regulations and the River Alre In their assessment of the existing Candover Abstraction Scheme licence, the Agency identify that the cone of depression extends to affect the headwaters of neighbouring catchments, including the River Wey and Dever. It also includes the River Alre, which itself is part of the River Itchen SSSI and SAC. The Agency’s technical assessment (Report No.1) says “Once the scheme has been turned off, the lowering of groundwater levels caused by its use results in a reduction in flow in both the Candover Stream and some of the surrounding watercourses - namely the Rivers Dever (in the River Test catchment), and River Wey (in the River Thames catchment), and Alre (upper Itchen catchment). The largest impacts on flows tend to be whilst flows are rising as a result of natural recharge but reductions in peak winter flows are also likely. Depending on how much the scheme has been used and how rapid the natural recharge has been, small scale impacts can persist during the Spring and Summer following use of the scheme and in exceptional conditions, very small impacts can persist for longer than a year. The scale of impact varies, ranging from a maximum reduction in flows of up to 50% in the upper Candover Stream; 10-20% in the middle reaches of the Candover Stream, 5-10% for the lower Candover Stream; and for the River Alre, River Dever and River Wey between 5 to 30% reduction in river flows, reducing after a few months to typically less than 2% for the duration of up to 12 months.” That risk to the Alre and other watercourses is repeated several times throughout the Agency’s technical assessments. We strongly support the Agency’s decision to reduce the licence to a magnitude that means the cone of depression will no longer affect any of those catchments.