Catfield Fen: decision on licence applications
Updated 13 May 2015
© Crown copyright 2015
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/catfield-fen-decision-on-licence-application/catfield-fen-decision-on-licence-applications
-
Application numbers: NPS/WR/007223 (Plumsgate Road), NPS/WR/007224 (Ludham Road)
-
Licence numbers: AN/034/0009/015 (Plumsgate Road), AN/034/0009/017 (Ludham Road)
-
EA Area: Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk
-
Date of application: 22 December 2011
Applicant details:
A.W. Alston
White House Farm
Marsham
Norfolk
NR10 5PJ
1. Summary of the proposal
These applications seek to renew 2 water abstraction licences held by A.W. Alston at Plumsgate Road and Ludham Road, Catfield in Norfolk on the same terms.
Source of supply:
- Underground strata (Crag) at Catfield, Norfolk
Points of abstraction and quantities:
Plumsgate Road
- National Grid Reference (NGR) TG 38202 22302
- 1,090 cubic metres per day
- 68,000 cubic metres per year
- 15 litres per second
Ludham Road
- NGR TG 386 206
- 45 cubic metres per hour
- 800 cubic metres per day
- 22,700 cubic metres per year
- 12.5 litres per second
Means of abstraction:
Plumsgate Road
- A borehole not exceeding 20.7 metres in depth
- 300 millimetres in diameter
- PVC lined to 10 metres
Ludham Road
- A borehole not exceeding 33.5 metres in depth
- 300 millimetres in diameter
- lined to 6 metres
Purpose of abstraction:
- Spray irrigation
Abstraction period:
- From April to October inclusive
2. Case history
The abstraction licence at Ludham Road was originally granted in 1988, and the Plumsgate Road licence in 1986. From circa 2000 both licences were renewed on a short term basis, for periods of between two and five years, pending the outcome of the EA’s ‘Review of Consents’ (RoC). In September 2008, the landowner at Catfield Hall (Units 11 and 35 of the Ant Broads and Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), component SSSI of The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Broadland Special Protection Area (SPA) and Broadland Ramsar) expressed concern that Catfield Fen was drying out. In December 2011 the applicant applied to renew both the Plumsgate Road and Ludham Road abstraction licences on the same terms.
In order to understand the concerns about the drying out of Catfield Fen (endorsed by Natural England (NE) in 2011) the Environment Agency (EA) agreed to commission a report through Amec. In recognition the contentious issue surrounding local abstraction, the EA has treated the applications as being of high public interest.
Following the Amec report, the EA undertook a groundwater modelling assessment using the EA’s Northern East Anglia Chalk (NEAC) groundwater model. Through further consultation with NE, the EA were advised that the site was not drying out, but there is ecological change; more Sphagnum sp. moss on the site, which indicates that the site is acidifying. The cause of this could be a reduction in base rich groundwater input into the Fen.
The EA prepared its Appropriate Assessment in March 2014. This was supported by a technical report, with both reports focusing on the impacts of abstraction the Ant Broads and Marshes component SSSI of The Broads SAC.
The EA received extensive comments from both NE and Broads Authority (BA) through the Appropriate Assessment consultation, including new information. Given the new this information, and uncertainties raised by NE and the BA, the EA revised the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment.
A public consultation was conducted, between 17 November 2014 and 15 December 2014. At the same time, NE and the BA were re-consulted on the statutory assessments.
In order to take account of relevant information received through the public consultation, an extended consultation response date was agreed with NE of 16 January 2015. This enabled NE to consider the updated statutory consultation together with the relevant public consultation responses. NE again provided extensive comments on the updated statutory assessment.
A full case history in given in section 3 of the determination report.
3. Justification of quantities
Both licences have been used frequently near their maximum limit. The applicant has demonstrated the continued need through a cropping plan. The quantities applied for are considered justified.
4. Resource assessment
Groundwater availability is guided by the surface water resource availability which it is in continuity with. Groundwater is only considered to be sustainably available for abstraction when the overlying in-continuity surface water assessment shows there is water available at Q95, and local groundwater tests for sustainability are passed. In this area, local assessment has determined that surface water is not available for abstraction at Q95, hence a Licensing Strategy based assessment would not regard groundwater as being available either. The common end date for the Broadland Rivers Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) which is applicable to these abstractions is 31 March 2018. Due to the EA not being able to ascertain that the abstractions will not have an adverse effect on the site integrity of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, renewal licences cannot be granted for any further duration, short term or otherwise
5. Impact assessment of proposal
The assessment of the potential impact of the Plumsgate Road and Ludham Road abstractions has been detailed, extensive and prolonged. As such, it is not possible to detail here. The impact assessment is presented in a technical report and summarised in the determination report and accompanying consultation responses annex.
The EA has used the best available information in determining these applications. After fully considering all available evidence, the EA cannot conclude that the abstractions will have no adverse effect on the integrity of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, when considered alone and in-combination with other permissions. The recommendation to refuse the applications is based on the Habitats Directive assessment test and the enshrined ‘precautionary principle’. The EA, as the competent authority assessing the impact of the permissions, cannot be certain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there is no impact alone and in-combination on the European designated sites.
The EA cannot conclude no likely damage on the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI, therefore the applications are also refused on the basis of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 assessment.
6. Statutory consultation
Extensive consultation with NE and the BA through emails, meetings and teleconferences has been ongoing throughout the determination of these applications. Formal advice from NE is given in numerous reports.
An Appendix 11 proforma was completed, and agreed by NE on 22 August 2013. The EA could not conclude no likely significant effect alone and in-combination on the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI, component of the SAC, SPA and Ramsar.
An Appropriate Assessment was completed on 20 March 2014 and the EA formally consulted NE. The EA assessment concluded that, using the evidence available at that time, abstraction was sustainable in terms of maintaining the conservation status of the designated features, based on NE’s Conservation Objectives. On this basis the EA concluded no adverse effect from the proposed abstraction licence renewals on the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI component of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. An Appendix 4 SSSI assessment was also completed which concluded no likely damage from the two abstractions on the Ant Broads and Marsh SSSI.
Extensive comments were received from NE and the BA in April 2014 including new information. Both organisations disagreed with the overall conclusion of no adverse effect. Some key areas of concern were raised. These were investigated by the EA and subsequently led the EA to change its overall conclusion. It could no longer be concluded that the abstractions had no adverse effect on site integrity, when considering the potential impact on the Snipe Marsh area of the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI.
The statutory consultation through the Appropriate Assessment Addendum and Appendix 4 Addendum was updated and sent to NE on 17 November 2014. NE raised a number of concerns including water chemistry and the ‘alone’ impact of the abstractions. They agreed with the overall conclusion of adverse effect on site integrity.
Again, the EA investigated the concerns. Some of the elements of the assessment (such as water chemistry) were revisited. Taking into consideration the advice from NE, the final position reached by the EA was:
It is considered that the Plumsgate Road and Ludham Road abstractions could potentially damage the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI when considering potential changes in water chemistry.
It cannot be ascertained, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that granting the licences will not adversely affect site integrity of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, considering the licences alone and in-combination with other permissions.
7. External representations
Where the application is to renew a licence on the same terms, the normal duty to advertise the application and notify statutory consultees, does not apply. As such, these applications were not formally advertised. However, in recognition of the contentious issue surrounding local abstraction in the local area, the EA has treated the applications as being of high public interest, and applied its Regulatory Guidance Note 6 ‘Sites of High Public Interest’ as best practice. This advises that a ‘minded to’ consultation takes place.
The first step in this process was to issue a publication notice of the applications to renew the Plumsgate Road and Ludham Road abstraction licences. The notice was placed on the EA’s publications webpage between 15 August 2012 and 12 September 2012. 84 individuals or organisations registered their interest at that time.
In November 2012, the public were consulted through Regulation 61(4) of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 in preparation for the Appropriate Assessment.
As the applications were not been advertised, no formal representations were solicited, other than the formal consultation responses from NE and the BA.
The ‘minded to’ consultation was conducted for 28 days, beginning 17 November 2014 and ending 15 December 2014. 198 responses were received during the ‘minded to’ consultation; 177 responses supported the draft decision with 21 responders opposed to the draft decision.
A summary of the comments and questions raised during the ‘minded to’ consultation are documented in the EA’s determination report.
8. Protected rights
There have been no documented well failures or recorded derogation in the Catfield and Ludham area since the abstraction licences have been issued, and as these applications are for the renewal of the existing abstractions on the same terms, there are not considered to be any further risks. Existing lawful uses of water were considered when the abstractions were first authorised, the EA is not aware of any new lawful users since this time. No protected rights have been identified as being at risk of derogation as a result of these applications.
9. Conservation issues
Assessments of likely significant effect and adverse effect have been conducted for both applications. The outcome of the consultation with NE has been that the EA cannot conclude the abstraction licences will have no adverse effect on the integrity of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, when considered in-combination with other permissions. The recommendation is that the applications should be refused due to the conclusions of the [updated] Habitats Directive Appropriate Assessment.
10. Costs/benefits
Costs:
There will be a financial loss to the applicant’s business as a result of the decision to refuse the applications. There is a likely cost involved for the applicant to search for any possible alternative water sources.
Benefits:
The decision allows the EA to adhere to its responsibilities under the Habitats Directive, conserves the local environment and associated recreational uses, and reduces the potential impact on designated species and habitats from the possible effects of groundwater abstraction.
11. Biodiversity and sustainable development
The EA cannot conclude that the abstractions will have no adverse effect on the integrity of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, when considered alone and in-combination with other permissions. The recommendation to refuse the applications is based on the Habitats Directive in-combination assessment test and the enshrined ‘precautionary principle’. The EA, as the competent authority assessing the impact of the permissions, cannot be certain there is no impact in-combination on the European designated sites.
The EA cannot conclude no likely damage on the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI, therefore the applications are also refused on the basis of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 assessment.
12. Social and economic welfare of rural communities
Approximately 10% of the total responses to the ‘minded to’ consultation’ opposed the draft decision to refuse the applications. There will be an associated financial loss to the applicant and other local businesses and individuals who rely directly or indirectly on the water supplied from the abstractions as a result of the decision to refuse the applications. There is a potential loss of employment in the local area and associated impact on local economy.
13. Conclusion and recommendation
The EA cannot ascertain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the abstractions will not adversely effect the site integrity of the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI component of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, given the current fully licensed in-combination level of abstraction. This is specifically in relation to the predicted in-combination water level change at Snipe Marsh and predicted alone and in-combination water chemistry change at Catfield Fen. It is also considered that the Plumsgate Road and Ludham Road abstractions could potentially damage the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI when considering potential changes in water chemistry.
It is therefore recommended that the applications are refused.
Contact the Environment Agency team responsible for this decision: