Calls to rethink huge Ribble Valley water tunnel going from the Lake District to Manchester

A Lancashire man who wants alternative methods and routes explored for upgrading a major water tunnel from the Lake District to Manchester has written to Ribble Valley Borough Council, questioning the potential costs and likelihood of it enforcing planning conditions linked to the project.

Mel Shutes, who lives in Newton in Bowland, in the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, has written to Ribble Valley Council’s chief executive about the Haweswater Aqueduct Resilience Programme (HARP) by United Utilities. Mr Shutes hopes Ribble Valley Council will look again at the planning application, which was conditionally approved by councillors in March but could be called-in by the government.

His new appeal also follows the May local elections and other events, including an ongoing Supreme Court hearing in Manchester about the water industry and legal powers regarding sewage releases. Mr Shutes is also appealing for people to back an on-line petition for Haweswater alternatives on Change.org.

READ MORE: How an evening driving with friends cost one young man his life

The United Utilities Haweswater Aqueduct scheme aims to update a tunnel system built between the 1930s and 1950s from the Lakes through Lancashire to Manchester. United Utilities says the upgrade is essential for future drinking water supplies, especially for Greater Manchester.

The proposed new scheme would travels along the existing tunnel’s route through various local council areas. Work overall could take an estimated eight years. The sections through the Forest of Bowland AONB, which has special protected status like a national park,were considered by Ribble Valley Council’s planning committee in March. Proposals include tunnelling, compounds, haulage tracks and temporary bridges across the rivers Hodder and Ribble.

Critics fear the potential impact on villages, farms, hospitality businesses, roads and rivers. Some also claim scrutiny of the plans has been insufficient or uncoordinated by some pubic bodies, councils or agencies. But the claims are denied by authorities such as Natural England, The Forest of Bowland AONB Partnership, which has links to Lancashire County Council, and Ribble Valley Council.

In addition, United Utilities has also defended its plans and its consultation processes. It says the Haweswater proposals meet all the necessary requirements and standards.

But critics such as Mel Shutes want the whole Haweswater scheme to be officially classed as a Nationally Strategic infrastructure Project (NSIP) and therefore scrutinised at national Planning Inspectorate and government level. He believes local councils lack the resources to deal with massive planning applications.

Planning approval so far

In March, Ribble Valley Council’s planning committee indicated conditional support for the plans after a debate. Councillors backed two recommendations relating to the planned Marl Hill and Bowland sections.

They agreed a recommendation that, if the government’s Secretary of State, Michael Gove MP, decides the application can be determined by Ribble Valley Council, it will be approved following a legal agreement within six months. Or it will be delegated to the council’s director of economic development, working with a key planning committee councillor, if exceptional circumstances exist after six months.

There are various suggested planning conditions. These include the proposed phasing of work by United Utilities, including a nine-month initial construction period and then the main project stage. Mel Shutes attended the March planning meeting and later spoke to the Local Democracy Reporting Service about his concerns, along with Newton neighbour David Spencer.

Some residents in the village of Waddington, north of Clitheroe, have also voiced their concerns on issues such as construction traffic and potential impact on old village properties. United Utilities has acknowledged the concerns and said its plans and mitigation ideas are appropriate. It is awaiting the decision on whether the Haweswater applications will be called-in for national scrutiny.

New letter highlights planning enforcement costs and negotiations

In his recent letter to Ribble Valley Council chief executive Marshal Scott, Mel Shutes highlights the potential cost of enforcing legal conditions linked to the Haweswater planning application. Mr Shutes also refers to a current Supreme Court hearing involving United Utilities and the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which began in Manchester in March.

That hearing concerns the canal owner’s private law options over the release of ‘untreated foul water’ by United Utilities when the sewage system faces extreme weather. The case is seen by some as a key test of checks-and-balances in modern water industry regulations, and especially the different level of powers, enforcement rights and resources of utility firms, the Environment Agency watchdog, private land owners and citizens.

The case has run for a long time. United Utilities was previously successful before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The ship canal company is now appealing to the Supreme Court. The case is awaiting a final ruling, which could take some months. Mel Shutes refers to the Supreme Court case in his letter.

He then queries the Ribble Valley Council’s intention, or belief, that it can ‘negotiate onerous conditions’ with United Utilities that will protect the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the communities and businesses that he fears will be affected by the water tunnel scheme.

Later Mr Shutes states: “My questions relate to your [Ribble Valley Council] strategy for enforcement of any conditions you are successful in agreeing Firstly, it should be recognised that no amount of enforcement action can reverse the harm that inevitable breaches will cause. All of your actions so far seem to write this harm off as collateral damage.”

Costs met by council tax?

Mr Shutes then asks how will Ribble Valley Council fund any legal recourse required if United Utilities breached legally-binding conditions? He states: “Will these legal fees be paid from the Ribble Valley Council element of the council tax? Or is the council able to obtain funding from elsewhere?’

Regarding the cost to councils for planning enforcement action, he asks how much it cost Ribble Valley Council to fight a planning appeal against its order to re-build the Punch Bowl at Hirst Green, which was demolished by developers without permission. (See separate reports from earlier this year)

On council resources, Mel Shutes adds: “Has this been built in to the strategic plan and what will be its impact on council tax for the next ten years? What resources do you have to manage enforcement? The planning application makes vague reference to community liaison and various groups. However, as a starting point there is already frantic finger-pointing between Ribble Valley Council, Lancashire County Council and Lancashire Constabulary when it comes to responsibilities. The funding of a county council officer seems to have been heralded as one of the major concessions achieved, as if highways is going to be the only issue.

Mr Shutes then states he hopes the Secretary of State will consider factors including United Utilities’ record, the Nationally Strategic Infrastructure Project planning process and the borough councils’ alleged ‘failings to follow national planning policy’ in deciding whether to call-in the Haweswater application,

And following the local elections, he adds. “It’s not too late, I am no expert on planning law but I believe that the decision to grant planning consent at the planning meeting in March can be reversed. Why wouldn’t a new committee convened after the local elections consider withdrawing the approval and waiting for the decision of the Secretary of State? My understanding is that councils are able to revoke or modify a planning consent ‘to such extent as they consider expedient’.”

‘Plans considered in strict accordance with policies’

In reply, Nicola Hopkins, Ribble Valley Council’s director of economic development and planning, said: “We have responded to Mr Shute’s letter and addressed his points in detail. To reiterate, the planning applications in question have been considered strictly in accordance with local and national planning policies, and are now with the Secretary of State, who is considering whether to call them in.”

Previously, a spokesperson for United Utilities said the Haweswater planning process began in 2020 and it had consulted extensively with communities and stakeholders. The firm had also listened to feedback and amended its plans where appropriate, the spokesperson said.

United Utilities was committed to continuing engagement and looking after the environment while carrying out the essential work, the spokesperson added. The firm would take steps to minimise the impact during construction and to reinstate areas to the same or better condition. The spokesperson added that Ribble Valley Council’s planning committee has resolved to approve the Bowland applications and United Utilities was awaiting the decision of the Secretary of State.

READ NEXT: