Supplementary memorandum from English
Nature
Response to Specific Questions from the Environmental
Audit Committee following English Nature's Oral Evidence Session,
2 March 2004.
Question 1. Further details of the concerns
expressed during evidence that investigations were not completed
in a timely manner during AMP3, including examples of where results
have not been available to feed into the current review.
The initial profile of completion dates originally
arrived at for AMP 3 investigations with nature conservation drivers
is set out in English Nature's memorandum provided to the EAC
for its previous enquiry in 2000. This is set out in Appendix
5 of volume II of "Water prices and the Environment",
and is presented graphically in figure 1 below. From this it can
be seen that for water resources 18 of 37 investigations were
timetabled for completion in 2004 or later. For sewage effluent
the figures are similar, with 12 out of 22 schemes timetabled
for completion in 2004 or later. Given the need to finalise schemes
for inclusion in final business plans in March 2004, investigations
with completion dates later than this cannot be used to inform
inclusion of schemes in AMP 4 business plans.
Figure 1. Planned completion date for AMP 3
investigations at the start of the process.
Additionally, some slippage has occurred with
investigations. Fourteen water resources investigations were delayed
by a year or more (10 were completed ahead of schedule by one
year), and five water quality investigations were delayed by one
year (none were completed ahead of schedule). These data are summarised
in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1
WATER RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS UNDER AMP 3,
AND SUBSEQUENT STATUS IN AMP4
| Water Company |
SSSI name | Completion date proposed by EA for AMP3 investigation
| Actual Completion/ Forecast Completion
| AMP4 scheme
(+ indicates that a scheme or investigation is proposed under AMP4)
|
| Anglian | Beetley and Hoe Meadows
| 2003 | 2004 | +
|
| Anglian | Booton Common |
2002 | 2004 | +
|
| Anglian | Coston Fen, Runhall
| 2002 | 2004 | +
|
| Anglian | Didlington Park Lakes
| 2005 | 2005 | -
|
| Anglian | Foulden Common |
2002 | 2004 | +
|
| Anglian | Great Cressingham Fen
| 2002 | 2004 | +
|
| Anglian | Kenninghamll and Banham Fens and Quidenham Mere
| 2005 | 2005 | -
|
| Anglian | Nene Washes | 2004
| 2003 | + |
Anglian
(and Essex & Suffolk) |
Ouse Washes/The Wash and North Norfolk Coast |
2004 | 2004 | +
|
| Anglian | Scoulton Mere |
2003 | 2004 | +
|
| Anglian | Sheringham and Beeston Regis Common
| 2005 | 2003 | -
|
| Anglian | Whitwell Common |
2003 | 2003 | +
|
| Anglian | Yare Broads and Marshes
| 2005 | 2005 | +
|
| Bristol Water | Max Bog |
2001 | 2001 | -
|
| Cambridge | Dernford Fen |
2004 | 2003 | +
|
| Cambridge | Fowlmere | 2002
| 2003 | - |
| Cambridge | Sawston Hall Meadows
| 2004 | 2003 | +
|
| Essex and Suffolk | Burgh Common and Muckfleet Marshes
| 2002 | 2003 | -
|
| Essex and Suffolk | Cattawade Marshes
| 2002 | 2003 | +
|
| Folkestone and Dover Water Services | Dungeness
| 2003 | 2002 | -
|
| North West Water | Bowland Fells
| 2003 | - | +
|
| North West | River Eden Tributaries
| 2001 | - | +
|
| Portsmouth | Chichester Harbour
| 2004 | 2003 | +
|
| Severn Trent | Aqualate Mere
| 2005 | 2005 | +
|
| Southern | Rainworth Lake |
2002 | 2001 | +
|
| Southern Water and Portsmouth Water | River Itchen
| 2004 | 2004 | +
|
| Southern and Mid Kent | North Kent Marshes
| 2004 | 2006 | +
|
| South East | Penvensey Levels
| 2004 | 2005 | +
|
| South West Water | East Devon Pebblebed Heaths
| 2001 | 2002 | +
|
| South West Water | River Camel
| 2001 | 2001 | -
|
| South West Water | North Dartmoor (Taw Marsh)
| 2002 | 2000 | -
|
| Thames | Sulham and Tidmarsh Woods and Meadows
| 2005 | 2003 | +
|
| Thames | Kennet and Lambourn Floodplain, Boxford Water Meadows, Chilton Foliat Meadows, Thatcham Reedbeds
| 2002 | 2003 | +
|
| Thames | River Kennet |
2006 | 2005 | +
|
| Welsh | River Wye (Upper Wye and Lower Wye)
| 2004 | 2004 | -
|
| Yorkshire | Hatfield Moors, Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors
| 2004 | 2004 | +
|
| Yorkshire | River Derwent, Derwent Ings, Melbourne and Thornton Ings, Breighton Meadows
| 2004 | 2005 | +
|
| |
| | |
Table 2
SEWAGE DISCHARGE INVESTIGATIONS UNDER AMP 3, AND
SUBSEQUENT STATUS IN AMP4
| Water Company | SSSI name
| STW | Scheme |
Completion
date agreed
by EA |
Actual Completion/Forecast Completion |
AMP 4 scheme proposed |
Northumbrian | Lindisfarne
| Belford | N&P removal |
31.03.05 | 31.03.05 | +
|
| | Haggerston Castle
| N&P removal | 31.03.04 |
31.03.04 | - |
| Severn Trent | River Eye |
Somerby | <2mg/1P | 31.03.05
| 31.03.05 | + |
| | Langham |
<2mg/1P | 31.03.05 | 31.03.05
| + |
| | Whissendine
| <2mg/1P | 31.03.05 | 31.03.05
| - |
| Severn Trent | River Teme |
Tenbury | 1mg/P | 31.12.04
| | - |
| | Knighton
| <2mg/1P | 31.03.04 |
| + |
| Southern | Pagham | Sidlesham
| | 31.02.02 | 2003
| + |
| Harbour | |
| | |
|
| Southern | Walland Marsh |
Walland Marsh | | 31.03.02
| 2003 | - |
| Southern | Lymington | Brockenhurst
| P removal | 31.03.02 | May 2003
| + |
| | Boldre
Bridge
| P removal | |
| |
| South West | Slapton
Ley
| Slapton | <2mg/1P (Scheme underway)
| 31.03.05 | 31.03.05 | -
|
| | Blackawton
| | 31.03.05 | 31.03.05
| - |
| Thames | River Kennet | Marlborough
| 2mg/1P | 31.03.01 |
| + |
| | Fyfield |
2mg/1P | 31.03.04 |
| + |
| | Hungerford
| 2mg/1P | 31.03.03 |
| |
| Welsh | Dee Estuary | Bodenham
River Lugg
| | 31.03.01
31.03.02 |
March 2003
2003 | -
- |
| Welsh | River Wye | River Wye
Monmouth
| Schemes as outcome to investigations | 31.03.02
31.03.05
| | +
+ |
| Yorkshire | Pocklington | Pocklington
| 1mg/1P | 31.03.05 | -
| |
| |
| | |
| |
Question 2: Further detail about the difficulty of comparing
different water companies' business plans due to the different
criteria used to prepare them, together with examples of cases
where water companies have not included work to meet their statutory
obligations for nature conservation.
In our joint advice in November 2003, English Nature and
the Environment Agency advised Ministers to ask Ofwat to require
companies to adopt a consistent format for presenting the pressures
on prices of the improvements sought in their business plans.
We expressed our concern about the lack of transparency, and comparability,
of the information in draft business plans. In some cases companies
had omitted from their draft business plans, environmental schemes
which are required by legislation.
WATER RESOURCES
The inconsistency in approach was particularly problematic
in the case of water resources schemes. As a result of the mismatch
in timetables for PR04, the review of consents process required
under the Habitats Regulations, and the delivery of many investigations
funded under the last review (AMP3), there is uncertainty over
the final size of the water resources programme. With the exception
of a small number of schemes the actions required to restore and
protect sites will not become clear until the results of investigations
become available.
In order to inform the PR04 process, at sites where the outcome
of investigation are as yet unknown, the Agency made an estimate
of the likely impact of abstraction. This was based, where possible,
on local knowledge of the site in question. Where local knowledge
was insufficient to make a reasonable estimate, a simplified generic
approach was used, based on a proportion of the total licensed
volume of the water company abstractions in question in the catchment.
The process of estimating "sustainability reductions"
within water resources plans was thus an important way of accounting
for water abstraction schemes under nature conservation drivers
which were submitted at high levels of certainty, but where details
for schemes could not be identified until a fuller options appraisal
had been carried out by the company.
Many companies did not followed the Agency's and Ministerial
guidance, in developing their preferred plans, and excluded Sustainability
Reductions from draft business plans even where these related
to statutory obligations. The differing approach by companies
is summarised in table 3 (taken from our joint advice to Ministers,
November 2003). As an example, Thames Water, which excluded all
water resources sustainability reductions for nature conservation
schemes, stated in the public summary to their draft business
plan that: "The availability of reliable water resources
is a major concern with the impending implementation of the European
Habitats Directive, which will have an impact on the volumes of
water we are allowed to abstract from specific water sources.
We have excluded further water availability reductions from our
draft plan because of the overriding public interest in supplying
water to customers."
WATER QUALITY
A number of concerns about the nature conservation component
of water quality improvements required in the environment programme
were identified in companies' draft business plans. The most serious
of this was the failure of several companies to include the minimum
statutory environment programme in their preferred strategy, (summarised
in Table 3 below) whilst some included environmental schemes which
were not sought by the Agency or English Nature.
Table 3
SUMMARY OF COMPANIES' DRAFT BUSINESS PLANS BASED ON WHETHER
THESE INCLUDE THE MINIMUM STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME IN THEIR
PREFERRED STRATEGY. BASED ON THE JOINT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY/ENGLISH
NATURE NOVEMBER ADVICE TO MINISTERS
| Company | Environment Programme fully addressed in company preferred strategies
| |
| |
|
| Improvements to water quality
| Improvements to restore sustainable abstractions
| |
Anglian Waterv |
| x | |
| Welsh Water | | x
| |
| Northumbrian Water | |
| |
| United Utilities | |
| |
| Southern Water | x |
| |
| Severn Trent | x | x
| |
| South West Water | x | No environment programme required
| |
| Thames Water | x | Environment programme (water resources) excluded
| |
| Wessex Water | x | x
| |
| Yorkshire Water | x | -
| |
| |
| |
Minimum statutory environment programme fully addressed
in company preferred strategy.
Minimum statutory environment programme not fully addressed
in company preferred strategy.
As an example, one company (Wessex Water) had not included
21 schemes to remove phosphates from a number of nationally and
internationally designated river systems in its preferred strategy.
The Wessex area is especially notable for chalk rivers, containing
by far the highest proportion of river SSSI of this type in Britain.
The schemes required reflect the large extent of designated nature
conservation sites in this area, their importance—many of
the SSSIs are also Natura 2000 sites and Ramsar sites—and
population pressures on the freshwater environment. Two other
companies had excluded six nutrient removal schemes from their
preferred strategies.
March 2003
| 
