APPENDIX 5
Memorandum from English Nature
INTRODUCTION
1. English Nature is the statutory body
which champions nature conservation and promotes the wildlife
and natural features of England. In fulfilling its duties, English
Nature:
— advises Ministers and others on the
development and implementation of policies for nature conservation;
— identifies, notifies and safeguards
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs);
— establishes and manages National
Nature Reserves;
— provides guidance and advice on the
principles and practice of nature conservation and commissions
and supports research; and
— enthuses others to support conservation.
2. Through the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, English Nature works with sister organisations in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland to advise Government on UK and international
nature conservation issues.
THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE
PERIODIC REVIEW
FOR NATURE
CONSERVATION
3. English Nature has notified some 4,000
SSSIs in England as the best remaining examples of wildlife habitats
and geological features. On over 1,000 of these sites, the plants
and animals are dependent for their survival on high water levels
and/or good water quality. These areas include streams, rivers,
estuaries, coastal waters, lakes, fens and marshes.
4. Discharges of sewage effluent by water
companies can have a profound effect on the conditions for plants
and animals, particularly by raising the levels of nutrients (phosphorus
and nitrogen). This leads to eutrophication, whereby sensitive
plants—such as water crowfoot, which is of European importance
in our rivers—are replaced by blanketweed and other algae.
5. Water abstraction for public water supply
may affect river flows and levels of groundwater in fens. Reductions
in flow are known to affect salmon migration, and lowering of
water tables can destroy the habitat of the rare fen raft-spider
and moisture-loving plants such as marsh helleborine. English
Nature and the Environment Agency recently published a review
of abstractions affecting wildlife sites (Water abstraction
and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England, September
1999).
AMP 2
6. This is the first periodic review in
which English Nature had an involvement. In 1993, we prepared
a list of some 20 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, where
we were seeking removal of phosphate by water companies at sewage
treatment works. The total cost of this programme was estimated
to be less than £10 million. Despite meetings with the Director
General of Water Services and with the National Rivers Authority,
we were unsuccessful in getting these improvements included in
the discretionary programme of some £500 million. The only
schemes to benefit wildlife included in the programme for 1995-2000
were the continuation of work at STWs affecting the Norfolk Broads
and a contribution towards the costs of moving the water abstraction
borehole operated by Essex and Suffolk Water at Redgrave and Lopham
Fen SSSI, home of the fen raft-spider.
7. The scope for environmental improvements
in AMP2 was limited, by Government guidance, to schemes to implement
UK obligations under EC Directives, principally the Bathing Waters
Directive and the Municipal Waste Water Treatment Directive. In
addition, there was a medium-sized "discretionary" programme
for the National Rivers Authority. As noted above, this contained
schemes to protect only two wildlife sites.
AMP 3: INVOLVEMENT
OF ENGLISH
NATURE
8. Because of the damaging impact of water
company abstractions and sewage discharges on designated wildlife
sites, much of which had been going on for a number of years,
English Nature determined to secure substantial improvements in
AMP 3. By 1997, we had prepared a list of some 100 SSSIs where
we were aware of potentially damaging discharges and abstractions,
and we provided this to the Environment Agency, which was beginning
to prepare an Environment Programme.
9. Together with the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (RSPB), we convened a conference "Investing
in Wildlife" at which the Environment Agency, the Director
General of Water Services and the Minister of State for the Environment
were all platform speakers. We then agreed with the Environment
Agency to include the protection of SSSIs in its National Environment
Programme, and 98 SSSIs thought to be affected by water company
abstractions or sewage discharges were listed in the Agency's
A price worth paying (May 1998).
10. There was concern, expressed by the
Environment Agency, that not all the schemes in the Programme
could be afforded. English Nature worked hard to produce statements
of benefit for each SSSI. We were encouraged by the publication
of the Secretary of State's guidance Raising the quality (September
1998), which included a separate section on SSSIs. Thereafter,
we pressed for the inclusion of individual schemes right up to
the Director General's draft determinations in July 1999.
11. The National Programme included both
schemes, where remedial action on SSSIs had been identified, and
investigations to establish causal links and/or appropriate solutions.
In the final determination, schemes or investigations were included
for 75 SSSIs, with two held over for further examination. Although
there was pressure on English Nature to agree to reduce the number
of schemes on SSSIs, we did not accept the financial argument
because, at some £150 million, expenditure on improvements
at wildlife sites amounted to less than 2 per cent of the National
Environment Programme.
12. After some pressure, English Nature
was invited by DETR to join the "quadripartite" process
in 1998. We attended quadripartite meetings. We also attended
meetings of the key players, convened by the Director General
of Water Services. Our experience was that the "quadripartite
meetings" were largely to report on progress—where
we had got to and what still needed to be done.
ROLE OF
MINISTERS/DETR
13. Ministers made it clear at an early
stage that the Government wished to gain environmental benefits
from AMP 3. They issued guidance in September 1998: Raising
the quality. This clearly states (p7) that, wherever SSSIs
are affected by abstractions or effluent discharges of water companies,
effective action should be funded through the quality programme.
14. Raising the quality also seeks
early resolution of investigations so that as many problems as
possible on SSSIs could be resolved through AMP 3:
— a timetable should be agreed by the
Environment Agency with English Nature for early completion of
investigations (para 107);
— agreement on SSSI schemes should
be reached rapidly, and the Director General should leave the
door open as late as possible for including such schemes in the
process (para 110); and
— arrangements should be put in place
to enable schemes resulting from investigations to go ahead on
the optimum timetable in environmental terms, even if they were
not allowed for in the original determination (para 110).
15. DETR chair the "quadripartite"
sessions. Behind the scenes, DETR officials have played a positive
role in facilitating agreement on schemes to protect SSSIs, both
in relation to abstraction and sewage discharges. They have also
assisted with timetabling issues.
ROLE OF
OFWAT
16. The Director General of Water Services
has a duty to further conservation especially in respect of fauna
and flora of special interest (Section 3, Water Industry Act 1991).
He also has a duty to ensure that water companies can fulfil their
statutory duties, one of which is to further conservation in the
exercise of their functions. English Nature, therefore, sought
assurances from Ofwat that provision would be made in the Periodic
Review for schemes to protect wildlife sites. The Director General
did not acknowledge this duty in AMP 2, always referring English
Nature to the Secretary of State, from whom he sought guidance
on such matters.
17. During discussions on AMP 3, the Director
General did acknowledge his duties to further conservation, and
these were confirmed through Parliamentary Answers. However, he
again deferred to the Secretary of State and to the Environment
Agency, giving his priority to the interests of customers. Ofwat's
interpretation of the relative priority of duties towards the
water companies, the environment and customers are not borne out
by what Parliament enacted in Section 3 of the Water Industry
Act 1991.
18. This stance was evident in the early
statements by the Director General that he intended that there
should be cuts in water bills, before he was in a position to
assess the full extent of environmental requirements and costs.
Ofwat also claimed that the customers' interests lay in obtaining
a better service from water companies at less cost. English Nature,
the RSPB and other environmental bodies contended that the customers
might also be interested in obtaining improvements in environmental
quality. This was borne out in opinion surveys conducted by the
water companies (at Ofwat's request), by the Environment Agency
and by DETR, which showed, inter alia, that customers would
accept stable bills, if there were improvements in the quality
of the environment.
19. These results were acknowledged by the
Director General in his draft determinations (July 1999). However,
the continuing emphasis in the final settlement on price cuts
meant that important improvement schemes affecting SSSIs were
put back in the AMP timetable and two abstraction schemes were
excluded.
20. During the process, Ofwat held consultation
days for environmental bodies, which were open and informative.
We would also commend the professionalism of Ofwat staff, who
provided English Nature with information about companies' plans
relating to SSSI schemes and answered queries promptly and efficiently.
ROLE OF
WATER COMPANIES
21. In relation to SSSI schemes and investigations,
water companies were generally supportive of English Nature's
aims. Water companies expressed readiness to undertake improvement
schemes specified by DETR and the Environment Agency, provided
they were properly funded. The companies and their association,
Water UK, complained, after the draft determination by the Director
General, that the proposed settlement fell short of what they
had asked for to deliver the National Environment Programme.
22. One of the principal tasks of the water
companies was to cost the schemes and submit the costs to Ofwat.
English Nature received details of costings for SSSI schemes on
a commercial-in-confidence basis. We noted significant differences
between water companies for similar schemes in the first round
of costings. Ofwat, through their Reporters, were able to secure
reductions in the second costing round. These reductions in costings
also enabled us to demonstrate, at a time when it was under pressure,
that the programme for SSSIs was less expensive than had at first
been estimated. A number of schemes on SSSIs are not expensive,
and companies have shown a willingness to carry them out as early
as possible within the timetable for the National Environment
Programme.
ROLE OF
THE ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
23. From the outset, the Environment Agency
took a proactive role in defining the AMP 3 programme of improvements.
The Agency consulted on the Environment Programme in May 1998
in A price worth paying, which gave prominence to improvements
for SSSIs, listing all the schemes and investigations proposed
by English Nature. We do not recall any consultation documents
or public information in AMP 2.
24. English Nature and other conservation
organisations expressed concern about the division of schemes
between Habitats Directive sites and other SSSIs and their categorisation
into 1, 2 and 3 in the lists in A price worth paying. This
categorisation implied that some schemes were more statutory than
others, and that those in categories 2 and 3 (66 out of 98) might
be expandable if the funding was reduced. After approaches to
Ministers, the categories were suspended, and we hope that they
will not be used during the implementation phase.
25. Overall, we found that the Environment
Agency has been very positive at the national policy level in
promoting environmental gains from AMP 3, including the protection
of SSSIs. Responsibility for specifying individual schemes appeared
to rest at the regional level in the Agency. Here we encountered
variable degrees of support for SSSI schemes; some very enthusiastic,
others seeking the deletion of a number of schemes on SSSIs. English
Nature had to work hard to retain a coherent programme for SSSI
protection. We shall be tracking with the Agency the implementation
of the agreed programme of schemes and investigations on SSSIs.
TIMETABLING OF
SCHEMES AND
INVESTIGATIONS
26. Early in 1999, English Nature expressed
concern about the possibility of "back-end loading",
that is delaying work on schemes in order to enable immediate
price cuts in 2000. Our concerns were that:
— wildlife sites that have been deteriorating
due to long-standing abstractions or sewage discharges (including
several SSSIs identified in the negotiations on AMP 2) could suffer
serious, possibly irreversible damage unless action was taken
urgently; and
— investigations needed to identify
solutions on 35 of 75 SSSIs in the National Environment Programme
might not be completed in time for inclusion of schemes by 2005,
as envisaged in Raising the quality, or even in AMP 4.
27. We obtained a timetable of schemes from
Ofwat in September 1999, before Director General's final determination,
which indicated when the water companies planned their capital
expenditure on SSSI schemes and investigations. We subsequently
submitted proposed dates to the Environment Agency, which largely
mirrored the water company dates for abstraction schemes but sought
earlier completion on a number of sewage schemes.
28. There was considerable debate between
English Nature and the Environment Agency on ensuring that the
timetable for schemes and investigations followed an "environmental
timetable", as recommended by Ministers in Raising the
quality. It would be regrettable if, as a result of Ofwat's
early commitment to achieve substantial price cuts, water companies
were not funded to meet the timetable envisaged by Ministers.
A detailed process for agreeing completion dates for schemes and
investigations and linking them to the profile of the price review
should be incorporated in AMP 4.
29. The Agency recently completed their
negotiations with the water companies, and the revised completion
dates for schemes and investigations on SSSIs are included as
an annex.
OBLIGATIONS THAT
THE PRICE
DETERMINATION IS
INTENDED TO
FUND
30. We have already drawn attention to the
statutory duties of the Director General of Water Services and
the water companies to further conservation, especially in relation
to flora and fauna of special interest. Similar duties apply to
Ministers and to the Environment Agency. In addition, public bodies
are required to take steps to implement the requirements of the
EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild
Flora and Fauna. A number of SSSIs are classified under this Directive
as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection
Areas for birds (SPAs).
31. English Nature expects that, although
no standards are specified, the obligations towards the Directive
and more generally towards SSSIs will be funded in the Periodic
Review, in respect of reducing the impacts of water company abstractions
or sewage discharges. We are pleased by the commitment to achieving
this given by Ministers in AMP 3.
32. There is an issue concerning the ability
of different water companies to fund schemes. Water companies
with a relatively small number of customers may have a disproportionately
high number of environmental problems. South-West Water and North-West
Water have been cited in this category. Essential schemes should
not be omitted because a water company cannot afford them: this
leaves a legacy of environmental deterioration. However, it may
be unfair to expect customers in these areas to pay bills which
are substantially higher than the rest of the country. There may
be a case for some sort of national fund for environmental improvements.
MONITORING BY
THE ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY OF
THE WATER
COMPANIES' CONTRIBUTION
TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF
ITS NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
33. English Nature wish to track the progress
of schemes and investigations affecting SSSIs. Effective implementation
will depend on:
(a) agreed start and finish dates for each
investigation and scheme;
(b) an audit system operated by the Environment
Agency and shared with English Nature;
(c) consultation between the water company,
the Environment Agency and English Nature about progress on investigations
and development of best solutions.
34. The Environment Agency has expressed
a willingness to share information with English Nature. We understand
that the Agency is developing a monitoring system. Obviously,
this needs to operate at an area level in relation to individual
schemes and investigations, with a national overview of progress
with the Environment Programme as a whole. The role of the "quadripartite
group" could, usefully, continue into monitoring and reviewing
the implementation of AMP 3.
THE CAPACITY
OF THE
SYSTEM TO
ACCOMMODATE NEW
OBLIGATIONS WHICH
MIGHT ARISE
BEFORE THE
NEXT PRICE
REVIEW IN
2005
35. A protocol for "Changes in Companies
Obligations and Consents after the Final Determinations"
is set out by Ofwat in Appendix E of the Director General's Final
Determinations: Future water and sewerage charges 2000-05
(November 1999). This requires that the licensing and consenting
system "should be used to the full before price limits are
increased". Further, it states that "The company must
have exhausted all appropriate means of challenging the imposition
of the requirement|" and that "The Director will assume
that a company that chooses not to challenge the new requirement
would be deemed to have accepted that it can absorb the implications
of the change without increasing price limits."
36. The protocol appears to change the "rules
of the game" which applied during the Periodic Review, whereby
schemes were proposed by the Environment Agency or English Nature,
endorsed by DETR and included in their programmes by the water
companies and Ofwat. This was effectively, a consensus approach,
whereas the Director General is proposing a more confrontational
approach to the inclusion of obligations that arise between 2000-05.
37. In relation to wildlife sites, a comprehensive
review is now being undertaken by the Environment Agency of all
operations which it licenses or consents affecting sites falling
under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations
1994—that is SACs and SPAs. The review is due to be completed
by March 2004. While there are schemes in AMP 3 which affect these
sites, they are just those for which English Nature had already
collected enough evidence to make a case. A thorough review of
all discharges and abstractions is likely to identify others which
require urgent action.
38. In his final determination, the Director
General of Water Services omitted two abstraction schemes affecting
SSSIs. Ministers have asked that these be reviewed by the relevant
bodies, in consultation with English Nature, and that solutions
are funded through interim determinations. One of these schemes,
proposed by Wessex Water, had very high costs, and we support
the re-evaluation proposed by Ministers.
39. Within the SSSI programme, there are
35 investigations (26 abstraction and 9 sewage) which could result
in schemes being identified. We urge that such schemes are initiated
within AMP 3 "without deferral to the next price review period",
as set down in Ministerial guidance to Ofwat (Raising the quality,
para 110).
CONCLUSIONS
40. The Periodic Review of water company
prices enables investment to be earmarked for improvements, which
mitigate the damage done to the environment by water company abstractions
and sewage discharges. Although the investment in wildlife sites
in AMP 2 was negligible, the sum set aside in AMP 3—some
£150 million—represents the largest programme of investment
ever undertaken to protect SSSIs. This is very much welcomed by
English Nature.
41. We have the following recommendations
for the Periodic Review process in order to secure improvements
to benefit wildlife sites:
(a) The Price Review has produced benefits
for wildlife sites in AMP 3. However, English Nature's proposals
were unsuccessful in AMP 2, and we do not know what will happen
in AMP 4. We recommend a more certain and formal procedure, less
reliant on political influence, to ensure that the impacts of
abstractions and discharges on SSSIs are remedied. This should
enable the economic regulator and the environmental regulators
to know which sorts of environmental obligations and improvements
will be included as a rule.
(b) We recommend that the "quadripartite
process" should be clarified so that the responsibilities
of the various players are clearly understood.
(c) We recommend that the quadripartite process
is extended into the implementation and monitoring stage, as well
as the preparation and planning of each AMP round.
(d) It is important that schemes—and
investigations that might lead to schemes—are carried out
in a timely manner in order to protect wildlife sites affected
by water company abstractions and discharges. We recommend that
a process for agreeing timetables for implementation of the National
Environmental Programme, including consultation with English Nature,
is put in place for AMP 4.
(e) We recommend that the Director General
of Water Services should be given a specific duty to take account
of sustainable development, in addition to the retention of his
duty to further nature conservation.
(f) The provisions made by the Director General
of Water Services for incorporating requirements which arise during
the five-year period are unsatisfactory, as they depend upon the
water company challenging the need for the improvement before
any investment can be justified. This is likely to lead to delays.
It also sets in train a twin-track approach: some improvements
are allowed for in water company prices, and others (the need
for which arises between Ofwat determinations) depend upon the
Environment Agency setting and enforcing new licence and consent
conditions, when there is uncertainty about whether they will
be financed through the AMP process. We recommend that schemes
are automatically eligible for interim determinations/logging
up, provided Ofwat is satisfied about the cost-estimate in each
case.
(g) We recommend that arrangements should
be made to effect environmental improvements where they are needed,
irrespective of the economic situation of a particular water company.
June 2000
Annex 1
PROGRESS UNDER AMP3: SSSI SCHEMES—ABSTRACTION
| Water Company |
SSSI name | Investigation/Scheme
| Completion date proposed by EA |
| Anglian | Beetley and Hoe Meadows
| Investigation to quantify impact of PWS. |
2003 |
| Anglian | Booton Common |
Investigation to quantify impact of PWS. | 2002
|
| Anglian | Coston Fen, Runhall
| Investigation to identify impact of unused licence capacity.
| 2002 |
| Anglian | Didlington Park Lakes
| Investigation (to be completed by 2003) and abstraction reduction (25 per cent at two boreholes).
| 2005 |
| Anglian | East Ruston Common
| Reduction of licensed abstraction by 50 per cent at East Ruston.
| 2003 |
| Anglian | Foulden Common |
Investigation to quantify impact of PWS. | 2002
|
| Anglian | Great Cressingham Fen
| Investigation to quantify impact of PWS. |
2002 |
| Anglian | Kenninghall and Banham Fens and Quidenham Mere
| Investigation (to be completed by 2003) to identify potential impact and abstraction reduction by 25 per cent at three boreholes.
| 2005 |
| Anglian | Nene Washes | Investigations to quantify impacts of abstraction and identify an appropriate abstraction regime.
| 2004 |
| Anglian (and Essex & Suffolk) | Ouse Washes/The Wash and North Norfolk Coast
| Investigations to quantify impacts of abstraction and identify appropriate abstraction regime.
| 2004 |
| Anglian | Scoulton Mere |
Investigation to quantify impact of PWS. | 2003
|
| Anglian | Sheringham and Beeston Regis Common
| Investigations (to be completed by 2002) and relocation of PWS boreholes.
| 2005 |
| Anglian | Whitwell Common |
Investigation to quantify impact of PWS. | 2003
|
| Anglian | Yare Broads and Marshes
| Investigation (to be completed by 2002) and reduction of licensed abstraction by 75 per cent at Strumpshaw.
| 2005 |
| Bristol Water | Max Bog |
Investigate perceived problem of groundwater abstraction reducing yield from raised bog area.
| 2001 |
| Cambridge | Dernford Fen |
Investigation to quantify impact of PWS upon site.
| 2004 |
| Cambridge | Fowlmere | Investigation and reduction in licensed abstraction by 50 per cent.
| 2002 |
| Cambridge | Sawston Hall Meadows
| Investigation to quantify impact of PWS. |
2004 |
| Essex and Suffolk | Burgh Common and Muckfleet Marshes
| Investigation to identify potential impact of unused licence capacity.
| 2002 |
| Essex and Suffolk | Cattawade Marshes
| Investigation and reduction in licensed abstraction.
| 2002 |
| Folkestone and Dover Water Services | Dungeness
| Investigation—groundwater model. |
2003 |
| North West Water | Bowland Fells
| Investigation, reduction and relocation as well as new treatment works.
| 2003 |
| North West | River Eden and Tributaries
| Investigation into relocation of the discharge of compensation flow to remove dry stretch.
| 2001 |
| Portsmouth | Chichester Harbour
| Unspecified investigation. | 2004
|
| Portsmouth | The Moors, Bishop's Waltham
| Close pumping station and develop new source.
| 2003 |
| Severn Trent | Aqualate Mere
| Investigate low-flow river and implement solution.
| 2005 |
| Severn Trent | Hewell Park Lake
| Implement compensation from Brockhill source during low water levels.
| 2001 |
| Severn Trent and South Staffordshire Water |
Severn Trent Water: Blakedown Brook
South Staffs Water: Hurcott and Podmore Pools
| Severn Trent Water: low flow river compensation works to provide up to 2Ml/d into the Blakedown Brook. Diverted output and additional flows. Reduction in groundwater abstraction. Definition of long-term sustainable abstraction.
| 2001 |
| Severn Trent | Rainworth Lake
| Monitor the effect of compensation feed from the SSSI to Rufford Lake.
| 2002 |
| Southern | Arundel Park |
Partial licence revocation. | 2003
|
| Southern Water and Portsmouth Water | River Itchen
| Input to catchment modelling investigations and implementation.
SW: general R. Itchen SAC investigation.
PW: R. Itchen model.
Fish Screen not included in price limits.
| 2004 |
| Southern | Sandwich Bay and Hacklinge Marshes
| Licence revocation.
Scheme completed so not in SW business plan.
| [2003] |
| Southern and Mid Kent | North Kent Marshes
| Investigations. Abstraction points are outside the European site, but may be affecting it.
| 2004 |
| South East | Penvensey Levels
| Investigation of impacts of abstraction.
Installation of fish screens.
| 2004 |
| South West Water | East Devon Pebblebed Heaths
| Investigate current abstractions and impacts.
| 2001 |
| South West Water | River Camel
| Investigate on adequacy of licence conditions relating to prescribed flows.
| 2001 |
| South West Water | North Dartmoor (Taw Marsh)
| Investigations. | 2002 |
| Thames | Sulham and Tidmarsh Woods and Meadows
| Investigate and implement solution, including possible modification to licence at Pangbourne.
| 2005 |
| Thames | Kennet and Lambourn Floodplain, Boxford Water Meadows, Chilton Foliat Meadows, Thatcham Reedbeds
| Precautionary investigation of possible impact through monitoring of shallow groundwater head. Implement solution.
| 2002 |
| Thames | River Kennet | Ecological and hydrological monitoring throughout the period.
| 2006 |
| Welsh | River Wye (Upper Wye and Lower Wye)
| Investigation of possible ecological impacts of water abstractions and flow manipulations.
| 2004 |
| Yorkshire | Hatfield Moors, Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors
| Investigate links between intra-peat aquifers and sub-peat aquifers used for abstraction. Develop a 3D flow model and associated hydrological studies.
| 2004 |
| Yorkshire | River Derwent, Derwent Ings, Melbourne and Thornton Ings, Breighton Meadows
| Ings experiments, construct and operate 5 per cent penstocks. Data gathering and monitoring.
Investigate impact of abstraction from Millington Springs on Melbourne and Thornton Ings.
| 2004 |
Note: The list has been compiled by English Nature,
in consultation with Ofwat and the Environment Agency.
May 2000
Annex 2
PROGRESS UNDER AMP3: SSSI SCHEMES—SEWAGE EFFLUENT
6 June 2000
| Water Company | SSSI name
| STW | Investigation
| Scheme | Completion date agreed by EA
|
| Anglian | Bure Broads and Marshes
| Aldborough
Rackheath
Roughton
| | 2mg/l P
2mg/l P
2mg/l P
| 31 Mar 03
31 Mar 03
31 Mar 03 |
| Anglian | River Nar | Litcham
| | 1.5mg/l P (Q95) | 31 Dec 03
|
| Anglian | River Wensum | Dereham
Fakenham
| | 1mg/l P
1mg/l P |
31 Dec 02
31 Dec 02 |
| Anglian | Woodwalton Fen |
Sawtry | | 1mg/l P
| 31 Mar 03 |
| Anglian | Yare Broads and Marshes
| Whitlingham (Norwich) | |
1.54mg/l P | 31 Mar 04 |
| Northumbrian | Lindisfarne |
Belford
Haggerston Castle | Investigation into relative role of STWs and other sources of pollution to be completed by March 2002
| N&P Removal
N&P Removal |
31 Mar 05
31 Mar 04 |
| North West | River Derwent |
Cockermouth | | 1mg/l P
| 31 Mar 04 |
| North West | River Eden and Tributaries
| Penrith | | 1mg/l P
| 31 Mar 04 |
| North West | River Ehen | Cleator Moor
| | 1mg/l P | 31 Mar 03
|
| Severn Trent | Chesterfield Canal
| Dinnington
Anston |
| 1mg/l P
<2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
31 Mar 05
|
| Severn Trent | River Blythe |
Berkswell
Balsall Common
Barston
Springbrook
| | <2mg/lP
<2mg/lP
1mg/l p
<2mg/lP
| 31 Mar 05
31 Mar 05
31 Mar 05
31 Mar 05
|
| Severn Trent | River Eye |
Somerby
Langham
Whissendine
| Initial investigation
Initial investigation
Initial investigation
| <2mg/lP
<2mg/lP
<2mg/lP
| 31 Mar 05
31 Mar 05
31 Mar 05 |
| Severn Trent | River Teme |
Ludlow
Tenbury
Knighton |
Investigations
Investigations
| < 2mg/l P
1mg/ P
< 2mg/l P |
31 Dec 04
31 Dec 04
31 Mar 04 |
| Southern | Pagham Harbour |
Sidlesham | Investigations |
| 31 Mar 02 |
| Southern | Pevensey Levels |
Hailsham North
Hailsham South |
|
2mg/l P
2mg/l P
|
31 Mar 03
31 Mar 03 |
| Southern | Walland Marsh |
Walland Marsh | Investigations |
| 31 Mar 02 |
| Southern | River Beult | Bethersden
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Biddenden
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Cranbrook
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Egerton |
| 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Frittenden
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Headcorn
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | High Halden
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Linton |
| 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Sissinghurst
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 04
|
| | Smarden |
| 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 04
|
| | Staplehurst
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| | Sutton Valence
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 05
|
| | Ulcomb |
| 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 05
|
| Southern | Lymington | Brockenhurst
Boldre Bridge
| Investigations
Investigations |
P removal
P removal | 31 Mar 02
|
| South West | Loe Pool | Helston
| | 2mg/lP | 31 Mar 03
|
| South West | Slapton Ley |
Slapton | Investigations by 31 Oct 2001
| <2mg/lP
(Scheme
underway) |
31 Mar 05 |
| | Blackawton
| Investigations | <2mg/l P
| 31 Mar 05 |
| South West | Fal and Helford |
Truro (Newham) | | 15mg/l N
| 31 Aug 02 |
| Thames | River Kennet | Marlborough
| Investigations | 2mg/l P |
31 Mar 01 |
| | Fyfield |
Investigations | 2mg/l P | 31 Mar 04
|
| | Hungerford
| Investigations | 2mg/l P |
31 Mar 03 |
| | Ramsbury
| | 2mg/l P | 31 Mar 02
|
| Thames | River Lambourn | Chieveley
| | 2mg/l P | 31 Mar 03
|
| | East Shefford
| | 2mg/l P | 31 Mar 04
|
| Thames | Tring Reservoirs |
Tring | | 2mg/l P
| 31 Mar 03 |
| Welsh | Dee Estuary |
| Investigations | | 31 Mar 02
|
| Welsh | River Lugg | Presteigne
| | P removal | 31 Dec 05
|
| | Moreton-on-Lugg
| | ? P removal | 31 Mar 05
|
| | Bodenham
| Investigations | | 31 Mar 01
|
| | River Lugg discharges
| Investigations | | 31 Mar 02
|
| Welsh | River Wye | River Wye
| Investigations | | 31 Mar 02
|
| (Upper Wye and Lower Wye) |
Discharges Ross-on-Wye | | P removal ?
| 31 Dec 00 |
| | Hereford
| | P removal | 31 Mar 01
|
| | (Rotherwas)
| | | |
| | Monmouth
Newland
Kington
| Investigations | Schemes as
outcome to
investigations
| 31 Mar 05
31 Mar 05
31 Mar 05 |
| Wessex | River Avon | Warminster
Pewsey
Salisbury
Netheravon
Ratfyn
Amesbury
Ringwood
| | <2mg/l P
<2mg/l P
<2mg/l P
<2mg/l P
<2mg/l P
<2mg/l P
<2mg/l P
| 31 Dec 01
31 Mar 01
31 Mar 01
30 Jun 04
30 Jun 03
30 Jun 04
31 Dec 04
|
| Wessex | River Frome | Dorchester
| | <2mg/l P | 31 Mar 02
|
| Yorkshire | Askham Bog | Askham Bryan
| | 2mg/l P | 18 Oct 02
|
| Yorkshire | River Derwent |
Malton | | 2mg/l P
| 30 Mar 05 |
| | Stamford Bridge
| | 2mg/l P | 03 Mar 03
|
| Yorkshire | Pocklington Canal, Melbourne and Thornton Ings, Derwent Ings
| Pocklington | Investigation started into impact of continuous and intermittent discharges
| 1mg/l P | 31 Mar 05 |
| Yorkshire | River Hull | Driffield
| | 2mg/l P | 26 Jul 02
|
| Headwaters | Kilham
| | 2mg/l P | 27 May 03
|
P = phosphorus N = nitrogen
List compiled by English Nature and confirmed with Ofwat
and the Environment Agency.
| 
