Understand the debate

United Utilities have submitted planning proposals to remove the weir at Crummock water, draining the lake by 20% and causing environmental and visual damage that will take decades to heal.

We explain the proposals. Why UU want the change and what we believe will be severe consequences.

Where it all began

It all starts with the ice age. The retreat of the glaciers that formed our beautiful lake district left a pristine glacial lake.

As the Industrial revolution took off in Cumbria, clean water was sought for the residents of Cockermouth and Workington. Crummock was identified as a ‘splendid natural reservoir’. In 1878 The Workington Corporation compulsory purchased the lake and installed control systems in the form of a weir at the northern outlet. Their work ensured that the men and women living in the town were able to drink clean water and reduce the diseases of cholera, typhus and typhoid that were killing so many. Crummock continued to provide water to West Cumbia until 2022.

Important to this debate is that Crummock is a natural reservoir wheras other Lakeland reservoirs such as Thirlmere and Haweswater were created by flooding valleys. See our article on historic lake levels. This is central to our concerns over renaturalisation.

Ennerdale and EA proposals on decommissioning

In 2015, the Environment Agency and the water company for NW Cumbria (United Utilities) agreed a scheme to cease using natural reservoirs for industrial purposes. A £400m pipeline allowed drinking water to be piped from Thirlmere. At this stage United Utilities began to consider plans to remove the drinking water infrastructure at Ennerdale, Overwater, Chapel House and Crummock.

UU commissioned Jacobs, an environmental engineering consultancy to conduct a report into decommissioning Crummock. This report coincided with a report from Daryl Hughes of Newcastle University which explained the history of the lake and weir building. Hughes, detailed historical account highlighted that the weirs had not increased the height of the lake - its level today is within 60cm of its original natural level. Jacobs considered this in their option appraisal of best ways to renaturalise with different options scored against 20 key criteria.

After considering the different criteria of construction impact, flood risk, geomorphology and ecology the best option was ‘assisted natural recovery’. A scheme to landscape over the weir to create a natural river outflow. A gentler scheme that would provide the benefits of renaturalisation without the impact of full infrastructure removal. Importantly it retained the water level at historic levels in turn limiting damage to the environment. However, this scheme was not considered any further. You can read his section from page 186 of the Jacobs report.

The Reservoirs Act

This is an important piece of legislation designed to protect communities living downstream of reservoirs from dam bursts and flooding. Water Companies are required to visually check their weirs or dams regularly and conduct detailed engineering reports every ten years.

United Utilities need to drop the lake to a level below the excavated bed of the lake outflow. This then releases them from their obligations under the legislation. This was their precondition for considering renaturalisation options. The concluding comments from Jacobs (p173) explain their position clearly.

“From the information and discussions, while it would be possible to reinstate the original outlet level as recorded in 1879 prior to the Timber weir being installed, this would not remove the Lake from the Reservoirs act or remove United Utilities duties as an undertaker for it would still be able to hold a body of water above the natural ground. “ (UU website & Jacobs)

Based on our enquiries with the Environment Agency, while it might be preferential to remove UU from its financial obligations, this should be only one of the considerations in such a project and should not override the environmental consequences, the deterioration of the visual landscape and the loss of amenity to so many.

Consultation Period

United Utilities held a series of public meetings throughout 2022. Valley residents provided feedback through Buttermere Parish Council. They highlighted four key concerns:

  • Whether UU is planning to drop the level of the lake by too much.

  • The effect on downstream flood risk

  • The impact on wildlife

  • Whether it is appropriate to decommission a reservoir

None of these concerns were addressed by changes in the formal application.

UU also state that remedial work is necessary on the weir but the heavily redacted report concludes that the concrete weir “remains in generally satisfactory condition.”

Planning Application Flaws

United Utilities submitted their planning application in March 2025, It will be determined by the LDNP Development Committee on or after July 2nd. The proposals have already prompted concerns:

Friends of Crummock View

After extensive review of the planning submission our conclusion is that this application should be refused. United Utilities approach is to put removal from the Reservoirs Act as its main priority and build the whole project around this. Better options were not considered such as the assisted natural recovery option.

It is misleading

  • It argues that it is restoring historic lake levels and ignores well researched and validated evidence to the contrary

  • While the UU expects a reduction in lake surface by 8.5%, their report quotes a volume reduction of 20%.

  • Submitted visualisations are misleading and give a false representation of the future lakeside look and depth of exposed shoreline.

  • Alternative and better options for renaturalisation have not been properly explored.

Environment

  • The deconstruction works will have a devastating impact on fish stocks, shoreline macroinvertibrates and surrounding flora.

  • The application is unable to show BNG (biodiversity net gain). Immediate works show a huge biodiversity loss.

  • Works will produce excessive air and water borne pollution, and works traffic will disrupt local villages.

  • Changes will scar the visual landscape of an iconic area of outstanding natural beauty.

Amenity

  • The proposed project timetable requires public access to be restricted from the Northern end of the lake for at least three years.

  • Public rights of way will be closed and diverted for long periods of time. Some rights of way will be removed.

  • The new shoreline entry to the lake will be over an 8-10m rock and boulder strewn border and is expected to drop steeply into deep water. Current entry is via time worn and gentle beaches. This is an important loss of amenity to regular users of the lake including wild swimmers, paddleboarders and kayakers, and fishermen.

We leave the final comment with Michael Falcon:

“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.” Michael Falcon.