Key Landowner makes alarming objections
We promised we would publish any comments sent in to us regarding Crummock. This one is particularly note worthy as Mr Falcon is a landowner directly affected by the proposed works. It is his comprehensive assessment of the plans. Whatever your opinions of the project, we believe this should be of interest.
OBJECTION STATEMENT ON CRUMMOCK WATER
PLANNING APPLICATION Reference 7/2025/2052
22nd April 2025
By Michael Falcon
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Local Stewardship & Responsibility: I, Michael Falcon, object to this proposal as a local landowner. My family has owned and stewarded the adjoining Loweswater Estate since the 1800s. As a Chartered Surveyor and directly affected Landowner, I feel a duty to protect the lake’s ecology, heritage and landscape.
• Misleading Purpose & Lake Level Impact: The application claims to “return the lake to its previous water level prior to the weir being installed,” but the proposed 1.37m drop is more than double the historic difference of 0.6m. This is not restoration — it is Legislative avoidance disguised as conservation and will have severe negative environmental and local consequences if allowed.
• Environmental Harm & Biodiversity Loss: The scheme risks irreversible damage to a World Heritage Site, SSSI, and SAC. The Environmental Impact Assessment is narrowly scoped and omits most of the lake system. Despite claims of Biodiversity Net Gain, the lake itself would suffer a 12.5% net biodiversity loss (≈314 units), masked by selective accounting. A questionable exemption under Regulation 4 is used to bypass the legal 10% BNG requirement — despite clear non-eligibility. Rare species like Arctic charr, salmon, and macrophytes are at risk. Vital data is missing, with no proper modelling of impacts, making the Environmental Statement neither robust nor reliable.
• Reconfiguration of Park Beck is based on a false premise:
Before Park Beck was realigned, it “historically” had only ever been a single, meandering channel flowing into Crummock Water. It has never exhibited the braided, multi-threaded form proposed. By keeping it as a single channel (with meander or wiggle) it would remove negative environmental impacts, footpath changes or the need to remove the bridge that is widely used.
• Risk of Flooding and Drought on the River Cocker and areas beyond: The removal of Crummock Water’s outflow controls would expose the River Cocker to damaging extremes — with no flow during droughts and unregulated surges during floods — posing serious, unmitigated risks to downstream ecology, communities, and infrastructure.
• Ignored Alternatives & True Motive: Viable alternatives exist, including partial infrastructure removal with minimal drawdown. United Utilities rejected these options simply because they would leave the lake under Reservoirs Act regulation. The proposal stems from an outdated 2015 agreement tied to a now-defunct Ennerdale abstraction — its original purpose no longer applies.
• Landscape Visualisation entirely Misleading: The visual impact is underplayed with misleading imagery. Separate measurements taken, show much greater shoreline exposure, with mud, dead vegetation and rocks, not the clean neat small gravelled beach depicted.
• Land Ownership Ignored and Procedural Errors: Critical land ownership (including mine) has been ignored, and no consent has been sought nor granted. The consultation has been opaque and inadequate.
Recommendation
This application is fundamentally flawed — misrepresented in purpose, harmful in impact, and procedurally negligent. Its only sole purpose is relief for the applicant from its obligations under the Reservoirs Act 1975. I strongly urge the Lake District National Park Authority to refuse the application and demand a more balanced, conservation-focused alternative.
1. INTRODUCTION
I am Michael Falcon, a local landowner directly affected by the proposed scheme. My family has owned and stewarded the land adjoining Crummock Water since the 1800s, including areas of the Loweswater Estate directly impacted by this proposal. I am a Chartered Surveyor and landowner, intimately familiar with the land, water, and heritage of this area. This is not a speculative or casual objection — it arises from deep care, rigorous review of evidence, and first-hand knowledge of the landscape and its functioning.
In this statement I explain why the application must be refused. I highlight how United Utilities has misrepresented the project’s intent, failed to assess or mitigate its far-reaching environmental impacts, and ignored practicable alternatives – all seemingly in pursuit of removing themselves from their obligations and duties under the Reservoirs Act. I also describe shortcomings in the consultation process and flaws in the application documents, ranging from incorrect data to misleading visualisations.
Throughout, I speak from the perspective of someone with significant local knowledge – informed not only by professional expertise but by decades of direct observation, historical research, and deep personal investment in the well-being of Crummock Water and its surroundings.
2. MISREPRESENTATION IN PLANNING SUPPORT STATEMENT
The Introduction 1.1 Overview of the Planning Support Statement produced by the applicant, states that “the intention is to return Crummock Water to its previous water level prior to the weir being installed…” however this is not what is within this application, and is a highly misleading statement. This is repeated elsewhere in the conclusion of the Planning Support Statement, so is a gross misrepresentation. The water level prior to the weir being constructed was 0.6m (2 feet lower), as stated in Clause 3.4 of the Jacobs Full Technical Report dated June 2020 which is within Environment Statement Volume II 5.23 attached as Appendix 1 attached
The Daryl Hughes report dated December 2021 (as part of the pre application documentation) on page 131 shows water level in Crummock Water as far back as 7000 BC as being at 98.0m AOD which is only 0.60 meters (2 feet) lower before the weir was installed, as shown in Appendix 2 attached. The report predicts that the water level would return to 98.0m in 2030 if the weir was removed but that is not what is being proposed by this application.
United Utilities are proposing to lower the water level by 1.37 metres, which is 4.5 feet, but they have avoided drawing attention to this scenario in the planning application and have seriously misrepresented the reduced water level in the Planning Support Statement.
What makes this application even more misleading is that it seeks to obscure the truth of where the water level will be. In 1.1.1 of the Non-Technical Summary they say… “that the level of the lake would vary depending on incoming flows from the catchment and during periods of higher flows the lake level would likely be close to its existing overflow level”. This would indicate that in flood events the water level might go up to the existing weir height, but only when there are “High flows”.
This application is seriously flawed and based on misleading information.
3. ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS AND ECOLOGICAL HARM.
This application represents the risk of serious environmental and ecological vandalism on a grand scale to an important World Heritage site, Special Area of Conservation and SSSI, because the applicant’s environmental assessments are incomplete and minimise the true scope of impact. Below I outline the key areas of concern: the narrow scope of surveys, the misleading “Biodiversity Net Gain” calculations, threats to protected species (due to inadequate data), and the improper design of the Park Beck outflow channel.
In 1.13 of the Planning Support Statement, they say they draw upon information obtained from a range of surveys and reports produced to “inform the Environmental Statement written in support of the Planning Application”.
A lot of the surveys and reports are specific to the application area defined by the red line boundary which is focused around the infrastructure removal of only 18.5 hectares but does not fully address the wider area that will be affected by the drop in water level proposed. Directive 2011/92/EU (EIA Directive) States that the Environmental Impact Assessment must assess direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment including changes in water level.
Full Environmental Impact Assessments are required on the whole area affected, including all of Crummock Water and Buttermere, highlighted by Appendix 2 showing the water level rising at Buttermere when the weir was installed.
The EIA has not included bathymetric assessment of the lake (i.e. how the reducing water levels will affect the underwater topography of the lake). The lake itself has been largely ignored from the assessment.
The lake is oligo-mesotrophic, which means it is naturally sensitive to water quality changes. Lowering levels dramatically would likely incur sediment changes, mobilising silts and affecting eutrophication (i.e. increased nutrients). Sensitive macrophytes within the lake (on the SSSI citation, but not surveyed except around the fringes) are likely to be permanently affected by nutrient enrichment. This would in turn affect protected fish and aquatic species. It may also proliferate invasive species such as the New Zealand pygmy weed. The effects of climate change have also not been modelled. In short there has been no proper modelling of these impacts and the Environmental Statement is not reliable.
4. BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN – A FALSE CLAIM HIDING NET LOSS There is a very significant Biodiversity Loss.
Under the Environment Act 2021, major developments must deliver at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). United Utilities claims this scheme achieves a +33.5% gain — a claim that is highly misleading. It relies on selective accounting: small ecological improvements in the new river channels and marginal habitats are counted, while the far greater biodiversity loss from lowering the lake is downplayed or ignored.
According to United Utilities’ own figures (WSP Technical Note 1), Crummock Water would lose 12.5% of its biodiversity units, dropping from 2,514 to around 2,200 — a net loss of ~314 units. Even after factoring in all other enhancements, the scheme shows a combined deficit of over 316 habitat units. This flatly contradicts any claim of net gain.
The claim of a 33.5% uplift is made possible only by ignoring the lake’s losses and emphasizing selective gains — particularly in Park Beck, where artificial channels are presented as “restoration.” In truth, making the lake shallower and exposing shoreline results in degraded habitat, not improvement.
To avoid the 10% BNG requirement, the applicant invokes a Regulation 4 exemption, intended for very minor developments (e.g., <25 m² of affected land or <5 m of watercourse, with no priority habitats). This project clearly does not qualify: it affects a large designated lake, its shoreline, and a river. Nonetheless, the applicant claims a “bespoke compensation strategy” has been agreed with Natural England, but offers no public explanation for why Rule 4 applies, the criteria for which are as follows:
• The development does not impact an onsite priority habitat.
• It affects less than 25 square meters of onsite habitat with a biodiversity value greater than zero.
• It impacts less than 5 meters in length of onsite line habitat, such as hedgerows or water courses.
This is an apparent misuse of legal exemption — one that allows United Utilities to bypass the BNG obligation and conceal what is, in truth, a significant net loss of biodiversity across a sensitive landscape. If standard BNG rules were applied, this scheme could not proceed without substantial mitigation or offsetting — none of which has been proposed. The BNG metrics are being manipulated to obscure ecological harm. Planning decision-makers are not being shown the true picture. Instead of a gain, this scheme represents a clear ecological deficit, directly at odds with National Park purposes and national environmental policy.
For that reason alone, the application should be refused. The figures should be honest, the methodology transparent, and the exemptions used only where they lawfully apply — none of which is true in this case.
A Rule 4 exemption is totally unjustified on the above grounds. The Applicant and Natural England have not explained why this Rule 4 exemption is justified in this case.
5. IMPROPER JUSTIFICATION BASED ON RESERVOIRS ACT AVOIDANCE
In 2015 a legal agreement between United Utilities, Environment Agency and Natural England was signed for a series of compensatory measures to offset the environmental impact of continued extraction at Ennerdale Water. This included the removal of the weir and other infrastructure at Crummock Water. The water abstraction at Ennerdale ceased in 2022, so the reason for this scheme has become redundant. Ennerdale is also in an entirely different catchment area.
United Utilities have been advised that in order to avoid liabilities under the Reservoir Act, all the infrastructure around the weir including the sluice gates (which are currently able to control the flow of water) and salmon ladder need to be removed, as well as the regrading of the river bed, thus reducing the water level in the lake by 1.37 metres. (4’6”)
It would be perfectly possible to design the scheme to remove most of the hard infrastructure but to maintain the water level at no lower than its historic level (2 feet lower) (0.6m) before the weir was installed.
Several options were considered in the Jacobs Technical Report contained in document Environmental Statement Vol II Appendix H.
Of the six options considered, and scored against a criteria of 20 technical measures, the highest scoring solution for dam removal was “Assisted recovery - To strategically remove parts of the structure”. This would have least impact on the local ecology by maintaining the lake level and protecting the wetlands and the visual landscape, however this was dismissed because it would fall within the Reservoirs Act.
An example is Cogra Moss where the reservoir infrastructure was retained, and the planning application was resisted on nature conservation grounds.
In 2015 when the legal agreement was signed by United Utilities, Environment Agency and Natural England, they could not have been aware of the consequences of removing all of the infrastructure, that would result in such a drop in water level, because many of the necessary studies had not been done at that stage.
There is a requirement in that agreement to review the environmental information obtained from the undertaking of each Compensatory Measure, as well as other obligations. This means any proposed scheme to remove the infrastructure should take into account the damage to the environment by lowering the water level below its historic level.
This scheme is proposed by United Utilities because it avoids the liabilities of the Reservoir Act, which is not a justification when suitable alternatives are available. It is also a derogation of duty by Environment Agency and Natural England to allow this application to come forward, as they have been on the Project Steering Group from inception.
6. PARK BECK CHANNEL MISCHARACTERISATION
The proposal mischaracterises the historical channel and flow of Park Beck to justify a radical design of what will be a “fan”.
On page 8 of the Non-Technical Summary of reasonable alternatives considered, Jacobs say “the design of the single thread channel design was replaced by the final design of a multi thread channel spread across the natural delta, consistent with how the water course would have been historically”.
This is clearly a misrepresentation as there is no evidence to suggest this is how the water course of Park Beck used to flow “historically”.
Appendix 3 attached is an extract from the Ordnance Survey Map published in 1899 when the land was acquired from my family, and before Park beck was straightened showing the route of the single channel.
This is confirmed on the plans in the WSP report Volume III. Figure 7.4 showing Park Beck alignment in 1863 and Figure 7.5 showing Park Beck alignment in 1900.- All as a single channel.
The introduction of sunken trees as shown on their plans to create what is claimed to be a “natural multi-thread channel” (page 5 of the Non-Technical Summary) and “flow diversity”. This is totally contrary to how Park Beck flowed historically.
Furthermore Appendix 1 which is an extract from the Jacobs report states that in 1867 Park Beck was entering the lake 50 meters to the south of the current location. This is confirmed by the plan in Appendix 3.
The report goes on to analyse the different options and finally on page 82 figure 6-3 shows the final outline design in Appendix 4.
The current design of a multi thread channel was dismissed as an option in the Jacobs report in favour of “C6 Re-meander Park Beck and remove concrete”, which scored better. There is no justification based on the evidence to produce a multi thread channel or fan.
Park Beck is an important spawning ground for Salmon and Lake Trout, and a meander or wiggle has proved very successful elsewhere. This would provide much easier access for the fish rather than having to navigate a boggy fan arrangement as in the current design.
I own the upper reaches of Park Beck and so have a very good understanding of the spawning of Salmon and Trout over the years and have allowed West Cumbrian Rivers Trust to take surveys and reading over many years.
There will undoubtedly be a steep decline in the spawning of Atlantic Salmon and Lake Trout in Park Beck if this scheme goes ahead and there is no evidence to show otherwise.
United Utilities claim that this design will decrease flooding because it reduces the speed at which the water enters Crummock”. This will have negligible effect, given the enormous catchment area of Crummock Buttermere and Loweswater so this scheme has been dressed up as a flood mitigation measure and naturalisation which it is not.
The portrayal of the multi-channel design as historical is factually incorrect and the proposals will damage the aquatic ecosystem rather than restore it as claimed.
7. RIVER COCKER DROUGHT AND HYDROLOGY FLOOD RISK ANALYSIS FLAWS The analysis of low-flow and high flow scenarios are inadequate and incomplete.
In the case of the River Cocker there is a serious risk of it drying out with consequential damage, because the water flows will no longer be able to be managed through use of the sluices.
The Jacobs report 4.2.2 refers to the water flows in the River Cocker in that:
“In the base line situation, the compensation flow arrangements make sure there is always some flow in the River Cocker and therefore provide a buffer in dry conditions. It should be noted that following removal of infrastructure, the River Cocker would be subject to a natural hydrological regime and there would be no requirement or ability to release compensation flow or manage flows in the river. This could leave the potential for periods of very low flow of dry periods. Despite this, the PSG issued a statement in January 2018 signed by the Environment Agency and Natural England which stated that they fully support the removal of Crummock Water weir and that the benefits of restoring natural processes outweighed any potential negative impacts”.
The River Cocker is an important SSSI and Natural England and Environment Agency should not have come to the conclusion in 2018 before most of the reports had been carried out, and without a proper assessment. Environment Agency could not have known in 2018 that the benefits of restoring natural processes outweighed any potential negative impacts.
I was informed in 2023 by Environment Agency that Atkins consultants had been commissioned to do some work on modelling low flows in the Cocker. Environment Agency agreed by email to send this to me, but I have never received this information.
This scheme presents a greater flood risk in certain events, as the water control mechanisms are being removed, and the water flow is entirely down to weather events and future climate change.
Having consulted with a Hydrologist, there is a concern that the study is based on a model with a single critical duration. This does not cover a series of potential events and it is important to understand what happens when flows get above average. The appropriate climate change allowance should also be factored in which is not the case currently.
There is a long and tragic history of flooding in Cockermouth and it is vitally important that any Flood Risk Assessment is properly done, rather than reliance on assurances from United Utilities and their consultants, taking into account all the misleading information already exposed in this application.
8. LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT MISREPESENTATION
There is a blatant and very serious case of misrepresenting the predicted water levels in the lake and how the exposed shore line would look.
A report called “Accurate Visual Representation” produced by Michael Spence in January 2025 explains how the visualisation has been done. This is found under reference 152482-
CWIRTM2901-Photomontages in the planning application supporting documents. He states he is “Using 3D LIDAR DTM height data and a hydrological survey of the lake bed into a geo-refined model”. He goes on to state that “The photography has been undertaken in an extremely robust manner”
Page 14 of the Non-Technical Summary identifies 11 viewpoints where photographs have been taken showing water levels in the lake before and after the work. Some of these photographs are a gross mis-representation and do not show the full effect of the lowering of the lake.
View 5 (Boat house) – Having a good knowledge of the area, I personally have checked the image produced. On the Tuesday 8th April 2025, I surveyed the predicted 1.37 meter (4’6”) drop in water level using a pole and tape measure to compare the predicted views at 1 year and 15 years after the scheme.
I attach in Appendix 5 photographs taken showing where the reduced level would actually come to, compared with the applicant’s predicted images.
It is clear that the predicted images in the application are wrong. This is of great concern as these images are what people looking at this application will base their opinions on. At the very least they will expect the images to be accurate which is not the case.
From the view point looking South, the water’s edge would be some 11 meters from the current water’s edge. (photographs 5.1 & 5.2)
From the view point looking North, (including the boat house) the water’s edge would be some 8 meters from the current water’s edge. (photographs 5.3 & 5.4).
Photograph 5.5, which I have produced from the measurements taken on 8th April 2025 shows more realistically where the water level would drop to.
By comparing these images, it is clear that the images produced by WSP are wildly inaccurate and misleading, and the application is flawed.
View 9 (Nether How) – I am aware that a rough check has been made on this visualisation and it is clear that this is also not accurate by some margin.
In the time allowed to comment on this application it has not been possible to check all the view points for accuracy. The Planning Authority should require accurate visualisation as the photographic evidence in View 5 is clearly wrong and misleading.
The predicted images of the gravel beaches are also misleading because there is a great deal of vegetation, mud, woody debris and boulders that will be exposed – not the neat clean small stoned gravel beach as shown in their visualisation.
There should be more view-points chosen in places where there are hard features such as trees, rocks, fence lines, islands etc can be referenced in the picture and visualisation. An example would be the view taken in Sandygate bay looking South along the Melbreak shore as this is an iconic location made famous by the artist Heaton Cooper.
This gross misrepresentation means that any decision is unsafe based on this information submitted in support of the application.
9. RISK TO PROTECTED SPECIES BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE TECHNICAL REPORTS.
The scheme poses a serious risk to biodiversity, including several protected and rare species. This is because many of the technical reports are inadequate, and out of date.
For example: -
The Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus)
This is an important species of fish that has been trapped and has survived in Crummock Water since the ice age.
A report is produced in support of the Application called Crummock Water Charr Monitoring and Assessment Final Report (2017). However, the Jacobs report states that the model used in this study by J Winfield assessed the reduction in lake levels as temporary and therefore did not investigate implications of a permanent drop in lake water levels. Even so this report is dated 19th May 2017 so is well out of date.
In document Environment Statement Volume II Appendix 5.10 to 5.14 it states in the conclusion:-
“No information on charr spawning or population structure was available and therefore a detailed assessment of the weir removal on current charr population (and sub populations) within Crummock cannot be completely realised”.
It also states that there may be a reduction of the spawning substrates by 30%, but increased suboptimal spawning substrates by 40%. These statistics should be challenged on the basis that the full information is not available. The main spawning grounds in the shallow waters will be lost if the water is lowered by 1.37 meters. The creation of suitable spawning areas will take many years to develop which will rely on wave action and erosion, by which time the Arctic Charr population may well have become extinct in Crummock Water
The report also states that “data is only available on 62% of the shore line” so this technical report is seriously lacking the detail required, and no accurate predictions can be made about the Charr population without this additional information.
Further survey work is required in order to produce an accurate evidence-based assessment.
Aquatic Macrophyte –
The mapping survey carried by Darwell Associates Ltd in May 2022 is not able to measure the impact accurately. As only sections of the lake shore have been surveyed (Figure 1 Crummock Water survey areas 2021)
Whilst the aquatic macrophyte community continues to include the important characteristic species noted in the SSSI citation, they state that 39% of aquatic macrophyte will be permanently exposed due to the lowering of the water level, and that 16 species were found in the 2021 survey of which 3 were new discoveries.
Many species will suffer, to varying degrees. It is stated that Apium inundatum is a species considered at risk by the lowering of the water level
And that Isoetes echinospora is considered a species of local conservation interest as it is not widely distributed in the Lake District, and that little is known about its potential adaptability to changing environmental conditions due to water level fluctuations.
The report states that 3 species will experience 100% exposure to the weir removal.
Finally, they state that “whilst it is not possible to predict with a high degree of certainty what the impact of weir removal and a permanent lowering of the water level would be on the macrophyte community, it is also not possible to say with a high degree of certainty that any impact would be small or insignificant”.
Given the importance of the aquatic macrophyte community, there needs to be a high degree of certainty to determine the effect on them, and therefore more information is required before this application could be determined.
An independent assessment of the Application has been carried out by a professional ecological expert in the short time available, and the conclusion is that they are not robust and the Planning Authority cannot rely on them.
In some instances, they are based on summarisation of other studies undertaken too long ago to be reliable or compliant with standards. It is also spatially constricted and does not adequately assess impacts on Crummock Water itself and the lowering of the whole lake.
There are discrepancies in statements about Crummock Water surface water area reduction varying from 6.5% to 20%, which could mean the lake being in a worse condition due to the proposals. The lake is highly ecologically sensitive with independent connecting receptors/features designated at an international level.
There is a lack of thorough survey or base line investigation which is out of date and not interrogative enough to provide a reliable understanding upon which to base the impact assessment. The survey data are not presented to be scrutinised, only summarised information in many cases.
10. LAND OWNERSHIP IGNORED MAKING THE SCHEME UNDELIVERABLE National Trust are not the only Landowners.
I am a landowner directly affected by the scheme, as I own land under Registry Title number CU269989.
Under the Workington Corporation Act 1899 land within the Loweswater Estate was compulsorily acquired from my family when the weir was installed. The Act states that “the fee simple of all lands belonging to the said Mary Falcon or the said trustees or devisees or her or their respective heirs or assigns submerged or used for the purpose of this Act shall remain vested in the said Mary Falcon and said Trustees or devisees or her of their respective heirs or assigns”.
This means that the land that is currently submerged between the Melbreak shore and the weir that becomes exposed is owned by me, as well as land on the eastern shore of the lake opposite Highwood. I also own land beside the River Cocker.
I have notified United Utilities about this and I am in communication with the National Trust. If the scheme goes ahead, it will be necessary to plot the boundary based on where the water level reverts to. Any proposed planting or landscaping on this land will require my consent.
I have not been consulted about these strips of land at all by United Utilities despite some of it being used for Landscaping as part of the scheme. Also, boundary walls and fences that will need to be extended over the exposed land.
Other factors directly affecting my land are referred to in Environmental Statement Volume III
8.4-8.16 as I own land on either side of the access track leading to the compound from Muncaster House.
• Figure 8.6 (Sheet 1 of 5) refers to ash trees to be removed. These trees are on my land. I have not been consulted on this and I am not in agreement for these to be removed.
• Figure 8.12 (Sheet 1 of 5) Access – It refers to the access track to be widened to 3.5 metres. As I own land on either side of the track I do not agree to the widening of the track where it affects my land. I have not been consulted on this. Furthermore, I measured the width of the track on the 8th April 2025 and it is only 3 meters wide in places.
• Figure 8.13 (Sheet 2 of 5) refers to passing places. As above, I own land on either side of the track, it is likely my land will be affected. I have not been consulted on this and I do not agree to the construction of any passing places on my land.
The above 3 bullet points all refer to the access track where the Applicant is proposing to widen the track and remove hedges and trees that I own, to gain access to the compound. They also refer to “flailing of features” along the access track.
This track is an ancient way with very old trees either side where the branches meet in the middle, making it an important “feature”. If the trees are removed and flailing is carried out this will cause a huge amount of environmental damage.
Not only have I not been consulted, but I object to any access to my land and the wanton destruction of these ancient trees, and hedge.
11. NO NEED TO REMOVE BRIDGES OR DIVERT FOOTPATHS
The removal of all three bridges and to divert the foot path is completely unnecessary, and would avoid the need to build a new bridge over the river Cocker.
With the drop in the lake levels the bridges at the weir end of the lake would stand even higher above the flow of the river, and do not need to be affected in any way.
The bridge over Park Beck is only being removed because of the Multi-channel fan that is being proposed. I have already explained that the historic flow has always been a single channel, and if that was designed (with a meander or wiggle) as previously recommended in the Jacobs report the bridge could remain.
The only reason that the footpath is being diverted is because there won’t be a bridge over Park Beck. If the bridge remains so can the footpath. If the footpath is diverted it will reduce accessibility to the lake.
United Utilities doesn’t need to build such an incongruous structure over the River Cocker which is introducing more hard infrastructure to this protected area.
12. LACK OF CONSULTATION AND TRANSPARENCY
The consultation process experienced by me, as a land owner directly affected by the scheme has been extremely poor.
I attended an initial public meeting in Cockermouth and submitted a form with comments at the time. I subsequently asked to see the form I submitted and was told it had been either lost or destroyed. So, I assume my comments were entirely ignored.
I was informed by email in May 2022 that my land “is likely to be unaffected unless access is required to carry out any works”. Which is clearly not the case.
I had one Teams call with United Utilities on 17th May 2023, but none of my concerns or requests have been addressed, and I haven’t been provided with any further details of the scheme since 21st December 2023, when I received an email in reply to some questions I was referred to the United Utilities website, which I have had to rely on.
I have seen an Inspection Report by Stantec on behalf of United Utilities of the weir under
Section 10 of the Reservoirs Act 1975, This was requested from the Environment Agency under Freedom of Information Act, but the majority of that report has been redacted which makes it meaningless. The letter from the Environment Agency states it was redacted “because Some of the information is personal data and some would adversely affect National Security”. I understand why some of the personal data should be redacted, but National Security is not going to be compromised by making the report available in full.
I am aware that not all the Landowners and Tenants affected by the scheme have received formal Notice from United Utilities of the Planning Application. If not, that is a procedural error and could invalidate the application. I had to formally email United Utilities to request a Notice so that I would know when the application went in, otherwise I wouldn’t have known.
There has been a distinct lack of transparency about this scheme. It is clear that consultation between United Utilities and Environment Agency and Natural England has gone on for many years as they are part of the Project Steering Group, however they have broadly ignored the concerns of me as a private landowner, and the public.
In the interests of transparency and fairness United Utilities should be required to publish all independently commissioned reports that haven’t appeared in this application, and to provide minutes of the Project Steering Group meetings.
13. RELIANCE ON STATUTORY CONSULTEES
Environment Agency and Natural England have allowed this application to come forward without full assessments, allowing misleading statements, and having no regard to the precautionary principle, which is of great concern.
It is not too late for the Environment Agency and Natural England to properly engage with this application and to properly scrutinise it.
If they do, they will find the application seriously misleading and factually incorrect.
We, the public rely on bodies such as Environment Agency and Natural England to safeguard our environment, and to look after our interests.
14. LIMITED TIME FOR OBJECTIONS
The planning authority has placed a restricted time limit for objections taking into account the significant of this application and the amount of information to scrutinise.
United Utilities have had years to prepare the application, but I have only had 30 days to try read all the supporting statements. This Statement has been prepared in the time allowed. In the interests of fairness and transparency I would expect the whole of my Statement (provided as a PDF) to be published on the planning portal with all Appendices. This is a very small submission when compared to all the documents that have been produced by the Applicant.
Unfortunately, the Application if full of factually incorrect statements and misleading information which is why this statement is so comprehensive. If more information is produced by the applicant over the next few weeks, I require notification of the new material and an appropriate time to scrutinise it.
The Planning Authority will soon be preparing the recommendations for the Committee. But before doing so I would expect them to scrutinise my comments for their accuracy and legitimacy. Before preparing the report and recommendation I formally request that the Planning Authority ask the Applicant to respond to the points raised in this statement, which have been supported by good evidence.
If this Application goes to Committee, I wish to reserve my right to object in person, adding to this statement.
15. CONCLUSION
• This application has been produced in a blinkered fashion, on the back of an Agreement signed in 2015. Linking this scheme as a “compensatory measure” to the continued abstraction at Ennerdale, in a different catchment area, and which ceased in 2022, so no longer relevant. Even so United Utilities have been determined to remove all infrastructure, without taking into account “environmental information” under the terms of the Agreement, and other alternatives that would cause less damage to the environment. Their priority is to avoid their liabilities under the Reservoirs Act, which is not a justification for this scheme.
• The Applicant is not returning Crummock Water to its previous water level prior to the weir being installed, 2 feet (0.6m) lower as claimed. They are proposing to drop it well below that level with consequential damage to the environment - 4.5 feet (1.37m) lower. The Statement in the Application on water levels is factually incorrect and highly misleading. Making the application flawed.
• The Applicant claims that there is a Biodiversity Net Gain, (as would be expected in any other application), but that is not the case because they have hidden behind a Rule 4 Exemption agreed with Natural England. The criteria for applying a Rule 4 Exemption should not apply in this case and there is no explanation of why a Rule 4 Exemption has been agreed. The Rule 4 Exemption is not appropriate in this case and there is a very significant Biodiversity Loss.
• The application area (Red Line Boundary) should be far wider than the 18.5 hectares around the weir and Park Beck. It should cover the whole area directly affected. The application ignores the effects it has on the whole area because of the change in water level, and is therefore invalid.
• Many of the reports in support of the Application are factually incorrect, out of date, inadequate and misleading. Protected species are at risk and robust evidence based assessments are required before this Application can be determined. An independent ecology expert has reviewed the information in the short time allowed and deemed the ecological assessment to not be robust, and that the Planning Authority cannot rely on the information.
• The creation of multi thread channels, to “re-naturalise” Park Beck, is not how the water course was “historically”, as claimed, and will be extremely damaging. Park Beck has always been a single channel, and a meander or wiggle, was judged to the best option but has been ignored. No evidence has been presented to show that their scheme will reduce the risk of flooding, in such a huge catchment area of Crummock, Buttermere and Loweswater.
• It is stated that The River Cocker (which is an important SSSI) will have potential for periods of very low flow and dry periods. This will have a detrimental effect on the Atlantic Salmon and other species, but no appropriate assessment has been made to show how the alleged benefits of this scheme outweigh the negative impacts.
• The Hydrology assessment should not just be based on an arbitrary adoption of a single critical duration. It should assess what happens when flows are above average, factoring in climate change.
• The Landscape and Visual impact assessment is grossly misleading and unsafe to rely on. View 5, predicting a view of the lowered water level of the lake beside the iconic boat house is plainly wrong as it does not show the full width of the Lake shore that would be exposed and does not show all the vegetation, mud debris and rocks that would be exposed. It is a misrepresentation on a huge scale which makes the application flawed. It also calls into question the other views which need to be checked.
• My land is directly affected by the scheme. No consent has been given by me for access, or for removal of trees and hedges, or landscaping. There are certain aspects of the scheme that are not deliverable without my consent, which is not forthcoming. This has been overlooked or ignored.
• There is no need to redirect the footpath or remove three good bridges, and to build a new one. This would reduce accessibility to the lake and introduce an incongruous structure in a protected area.
• The Consultation process has been poor, and inadequate, with no desire by United Utilities to properly engage and address genuine concerns, by me or the public. United Utilities have been more interested in ticking the boxes, but not all the boxes have been ticked so United Utilities have failed to follow the proper consultation and procedural process, making the application invalid.
• We rely on Natural England, the Environment Agency to adopt a precautionary principle in scrutinising and assessing planning applications. Particularly in sensitive areas of National and International Importance. However, they have allowed this application to come forward by United Utilities and they should now address the concerns that have been raised. If not, this would be a derogation of duty by Natural England and the Environment Agency
• This application has been presented as “re-naturalisation” but in practice it would be an act of environmental vandalism on a massive scale, to an important Universal World Heritage Site, with SAC and SSSI designations. It is an incredibly beautiful part of England that has been treasured by millions of people. United Utilities should not be allowed to proceed with this scheme.
• The Application is seriously flawed and should be refused. All the points raised in this statement need to be thoroughly investigated and responded to. If the committee decide to issue consent, they should be aware that with so many factually, incorrect and misleading statements, that a decision to approve this scheme would be open to legal challenge.
Michael Falcon
Date : 22/04/2025
APPENDIX 2
Simulating and Visualising the Hydrological and Landscape Impacts of Reservoir Engineering at Crummock Water, England
Daryl Hughes School of Engineering Newcastle University
A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Engineering December 2021
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 5
5.1
5.2
The top picture (5.1) produced by WSP on behalf of the applicant shows the predicted water level and shoreline after the lake has been lowered at Year 1 (the Year 15 image is identical).
The bottom picture (5.2) taken on 8th April 2025 shows a post being held in the water where the actual shoreline will be once the water level drops by 1.37 metres. This has been accurately measured at 11 meters from the existing shoreline to the post.
APPENDIX 5
5.3
5.4
The top picture (5.3) produced by WSP on behalf of the applicant shows the predicted water level and shoreline after the lake has been lowered at Year 1 (The Year 15 image is identical).
The bottom picture (5.4) taken on 8th April 2025 shows a post being held in the water where the actual shoreline will be once the water level drops by 1.37 metres. This has been accurately measured at 8 meters from the existing shoreline to the post.
APPENDIX 5
5.5
This is a visualisation of the boathouse and Crummock Water showing the reduced water level after the works, taking into account accurate measurements taken on site at 8th April 2025 – (refer to Photograph 5.4).