anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
PR09 Final Business Plan
Part C5: Projects Database
C5: Projects Database
1
Projects database
1
2
Forecasting expenditure for capital projects
2.1 Cost estimating – overall approach
2.2 Cost estimating – specific approach within purpose categories
2.3 Cost estimating – selected projects for scorecard assessment
12
12
40
41
3
Logging up and down
3.1 Water service
3.2 Sewerage service
44
47
76
4
Supplementary Information 1. Asset plus process description
84
5
Supplementary Information 2. Risk and value process description
87
C5: Tables
Tables
89
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
Contents
1
1 Projects database
Supplementary information on proposed work programme and
expenditure projections – the PR09 projects database
1.0.1
This section is structured in the following order:
general comments on completing the projects database
specific comment on populating C5-W (water service database)
specific comment on populating C5-S (wastewater service database).
1.0.2 Our commentary in this section primarily relates to the mechanics of completing the
database and technical decisions we have made to achieve this, rather than on how the
data itself is derived. This aspect is covered in the relevant sections of our Final Business
Plan, for example;
costing data - later in Part C5
carbon data - Part C8 (Justification of proposed investment)
cost benefit data - Part C8 (Justification of proposed investment).
General comments on completing the projects databases
Information provided within the database
1.0.3 We have completed all mandatory fields. Not all of the non mandatory fields are
complete in the database either because;
the information is not available to us or
it is not relevant.
1.0.4
Information has not been provided to us - for all schemes in the C5-S (wastewater
service database) and environmental quality driven schemes in the C5-W (water service
database) supporting characterisation fields are set within the database. For example;
Environment Agency and wider administrative information (Agency regions and areas, county
etc.) and environmental context (SSSIs, LEAPS, RQO, GQA etc). Where this information
has been provided by the Environment Agency for particular schemes we have added the
remaining data to this. Where this has not been provided we have left the fields blank as in
many cases we do not have direct access to the information. For some entries it is not
relevant to provide this, for example aggregated projects.
1.0.5 For example we have been asked to provide 'asset renewal dates'. We do not have
specific asset renewal dates, our capital maintenance requirements are based on meeting
service levels rather than age related renewals.
1.0.6 Below we set out a summary of the fields that we have not populated with a reasoning
for not doing so.
2
C5: Projects Database
Projects database
Table 1.1 C5-W (water service database)
Field type (name)
Comment
Environment Agency information
Region
Area
County
LEAP
Water resource zones
Catchment name
Catchment number
Source
Licence number
NGR
Licenced volume
Length of river
Licence reduction required
Area of wetland
Mean actual usage
Site description
Objectives
Environmental benefits
Environmental impacts
Characterisation information only
populated where provided by
Environment Agency
Generally this information is relevant
for environmental quality enhancement
schemes
Outputs
Detailed milestones (various)
Detailed for Top 20 schemes only.
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
Table 1.2 C5-S (wastewater service database)
Field type (name)
Comment
Location
Discharge sample point
NGR [of discharge sample point]
Not available
Environment Agency information
Region
Area
County
LEAP
SSSI name
RAMSAR site
SAC name
SPA name
Shellfish water
Bathing water
Freshwater Fish Directive designation
Only populated where provided by Environment Agency
Consents
Type
Substance
Amount
Other consent parameters
Only populated where provided by Environment
Agency.
Changes in consent are relevant only for quality
schemes. For other investment areas the consent
remains the same (e.g. capital maintenance) or is load
equivalent (supply demand)
3
Field type (name)
Comment
Activity
Receiving water type
Receiving water name
RQO of receiving stretch
GQA of receiving stretch
Effluent type and qualifying criteria
(sewerage projects only)
Only populated where provided by Environment
Agency.
Disposed of on-site
Additional sludge quantity
Outputs
Detailed milestones (various)
Effluent type / qualifying criteria for sewerage projects
only relevant for quality schemes.
Disposed of on-site - not relevant as we do not dispose
of sludge on-site.
Sludge production has only been added for quality
schemes as this is the only part of the programme
where this is relevant.
Detailed for top 20 schemes only.
1.0.7 'Company code' has been completed with the unique referencing number from the
Investment Manager module of our Asset Plus system.
1.0.8
The 'overlap' indicator has been set where a scheme extends into AMP6 and beyond.
1.0.9 Generally the schemes within our programme have single cost drivers. Where this
is not the case we discuss our approach in the relevant part of this commentary.
1.0.10 Company time horizon is set to 40 years and Company discount rate is set to 6.7%,
which is the pre-tax financial discount that we have used in our cost benefit analysis and
optimisation. However, for non-financial costs we have used 3.5%, declining to 3% after 30
years which is the Social Time Preference Rate. Detail on CBA assessment can be found
in Part C8.
Reconciliation processes
Financial data
1.0.11 The Reporting Guidance requires us to carry out a reconciliation exercise to key
investment tables within Reservoir. Within the detailed sections of this commentary we note
the reconciliations carried out.
Outputs
1.0.12 The database produces high level output tables. These do not reconcile with the
outputs tables within Reservoir due to a combination of mapping issues (e.g. the cost drivers
and project types within the database do not link to the line descriptions in Reservoir) and
limitation of the reporting function of the database (e.g. we can only select one project type
whereas a scheme may have multiple outputs).
Scorecard information for top 20 projects within each service
1.0.13 Our approach to applying the scorecard assessment is discussed in Section 2.3
of this part of our commentary. We confirm that the top 20 projects by value for each service
have been selected.
4
C5: Projects Database
Projects database
Specific comment on populating C5-W (water service database)
Capital maintenance
Rules for aggregation - non-infrastructure
1.0.14
Water non-infrastructure capital maintenance is divided into the following categories:
domestic water meter replacement
water distribution
maintaining water treatment works
replacement / extensive refurbishment of named WTW
turbidity safeguards, protection of open tanks
renewal of obsolete water quality monitors
maintenance of service reservoirs and water towers
remedial work on storage points as identified by the Reservoir Act inspections
maintenance of water pumping stations
borehole renewal and maintenance
refurbishment of Cadney intake pumping station
asset plans / models / tools and new technologies.
1.0.15 These categories align with the investment summary tables in Part B3 commentary.
For completeness and reconciliation with Ofwat tables B3.5 and B3.6, planned AMP4
expenditure is allocated to the most appropriate of these categories.
1.0.16
We have entered investment for Hartlepool Water as separate lines.
1.0.17
The expenditure totals for maintaining water treatment works include:
£429k in 2011-12 for the proportionally allocated expenditure for the upgrading of the
Ortho-phosphoric acid dosing plants, the remaining 80% is included as a separate line
in Quality Enhancements.
Management and general expenditure
1.0.18 Management and General expenditure covers: IT (PCs, mainframes and software),
telemetry/communications systems, vehicles, plant and equipment, environment, recreation,
laboratories and office buildings.
Rules for aggregation - infrastructure
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
1.0.19
Water infrastructure capital maintenance is divided into the following categories:
water mains rehabilitation
proactive planned preventative maintenance
asset plans, models and tools and future technologies
emergency work (bursts)
leakage control
repairs to customer pipes
raw water aqueducts, dams and impounding reservoirs.
5
1.0.20 These categories align with the investment summary tables in the B3 commentary.
For completeness and reconciliation with Ofwat tables B3.5 and B3.6, planned AMP4
expenditure is allocated to the most appropriate of these categories.
1.0.21
We have entered investment for Hartlepool Water as separate lines.
Reconciliation
1.0.22 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B3.5 line 4 (infrastructure)
and Ofwat table B3.6 line 7 (non-infrastructure).
Enhanced service levels
Rules for aggregation
1.0.23 We have reported all 27 fluvial flood protection schemes as separate lines.
Elsewhere in this part of the programme there is no aggregation of schemes or sites. Each
scheme is site specific.
Specific comment on field population
1.0.24 Resilience - we have reported each of the projects separately. Two of the projects,
West Pinchbeck (S9034936) and Newton (S9034591) are linked with supply demand schemes
S9034667 and S100955 respectively. The resilience solutions are effectively extensions of
the supply/demand schemes. In the projects database we have reported the outputs for
each solution however in Ofwat table A4 we have not reported the outputs twice to avoid
double counting.
Reconciliation
1.0.25 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B6.3 line 13 (infrastructure)
and line 16 (non-infrastructure).
Supply/demand balance
Rules for aggregation
1.0.26 Generally we have entered schemes as site specific with the exception of the
following regional entries:
housing and estate mains (HEMS)
active leakage control and pressure management
enhanced, optional and selective metering
water efficiency.
Specific comment on field population
1.0.27
Cost driver - we have split cost allocation between three categories; growth, new
development and sustainability reduction in line with the reporting guidance.
1.0.28
Project type: we have selected the menu options in line with the following
interpretation:
6
C5: Projects Database
Projects database
where the solution proposed is a combination of mains and pumping stations we have
selected the 'distribution mains' category
where the solution proposed is pumping and/or boosters we have selected the
'treatment/pumping and storage' category unless it includes mains where we have then
chosen the 'distribution mains' category
schemes that increase deployable output have been referred to as 'resource schemes'.
Reconciliation
1.0.29 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B5.2 line 11 (infrastructure)
and line 21 (non-infrastructure).
Quality enhancement - drinking water quality related projects
Rules for aggregation
1.0.30 The following schemes each have a large number of water treatment works
aggregated within a single scheme with common driver:
infrastructure elements of the package of measures for managing lead compliance.
1.0.31 The remaining programme includes sites with discrete drivers, these are entered
at a solution specific level.
DWI agreed programme
1.0.32 All water quality schemes are supported by the DWI including our package of
measures to meet the revised lead standard. 20% of the ortho-phosphoric acid dosing plants
has been proportionally allocated to base maintenance.
1.0.33
The reference from the DWI letter of support is completed in the appropriate field.
Specific comment on field population
1.0.34
Current design flow - a figure has not been provided for the entry 'catchment
management across all Anglian Water supply systems' as this would equate to the sum of
our treatment output which would not be meaningful.
1.0.36 Current treatment process - detail has been applied where a scheme is associated
with a single water treatment works, detail cannot be provided for schemes enhancing quality
at numerous sites.
Reconciliation
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
1.0.35
Change to works - 'other' has been stated for catchment management schemes.
No change to the works is proposed to enhance raw water quality.
1.0.37 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B4.3 line 16 (infrastructure)
and line 6 (non-infrastructure).
7
Quality enhancement - environmental impact related projects
Rules for aggregation
1.0.38
No aggregation of schemes or sites. Each scheme is site specific.
Schemes included within the C5-W (water service database)
1.0.39 The Environment Agency set out the final National Environment Programme (NEP)
for PR09 in a letter dated 28 November 2008. The programme is based on sites that are
part of the Restoring Sustainable Abstractions programme.
1.0.40
There are 12 schemes for FBP and separate lines are provided for each.
1.0.41 We include the catchment management investigations under the WFD5 driver and
Wing WTW - Rutland water habitats creation in this category.
Specific comment on field population
1.0.42
No specific comment.
Reconciliation
1.0.43 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B4.3 line 16 (infrastructure)
and line 6 (non-infrastructure).
8
C5: Projects Database
Projects database
Specific comment on populating C5-S (wastewater service database)
Comment on “multiple solutions”
1.0.44 C5-S (wastewater service database) allows multiple solutions to be entered.
However we have put only one solution per scheme into the database. We have used our
Investment Manager system to optimise our capital programme and explore synergies
between investment drivers. In this system we are able to input multiple solutions for a given
investment need. The output of this process has fed into the projects database.
Capital maintenance
Rules for aggregation - non infrastructure
1.0.45 Wastewater non-infrastructure has been aggregated into a number of region wide
projects. The investment area is divided into 'sewage treatment works', 'sludge treatment
centres' and 'pumping stations'. Each category is then sub-divided into on-going activities
to maintain asset capability and for asset refurbishment or renewal activities.
Management and general expenditure
1.0.46 Management and General expenditure covers: IT (PCs, mainframes and software),
telemetry/communications systems, vehicles, plant and equipment, environment, recreation,
laboratories and office buildings.
Rules for aggregation - infrastructure
1.0.47 Wastewater infrastructure capital maintenance is divided into gravity sewers and
rising mains rehabilitation, pro-active planned maintenance and activities for maintaining
network capability.
Reconciliation
1.0.48 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B3.7 line 4 (infrastructure)
and Ofwat table B3.8 line 6 (non-infrastructure).
Enhanced service levels
Rules for aggregation
1.0.49 The sewer flooding programme is all site specific apart from mitigation work which
has been aggregated into a single regional scheme.
1.0.51 For flooding schemes we have treated all schemes as being driven by either internal
or external flooding and have allocated cost in proportion to these drivers.
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
1.0.50 Odour control work has been aggregated into three schemes – two for Sewage
Treatment and one for sewage pumping stations.
Reconciliation
1.0.52 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B6.4 line 13 (infrastructure)
and line 16 (non-infrastructure)
9
Supply/demand balance
Rules for aggregation
1.0.53 Generally we have entered individual schemes except for the six non-specific
schemes (characterisation schemes using the UKWIR methodology terms).
Specific comment on field population
1.0.54 The data base does not contain fields for 'Defined', 'Defined Contingent' and
'non-specific' investment. These identifiers are held outside the database although
'non-specific' schemes can be identified by the 'Site Specific' field in the 'project general'
information.
1.0.55 There are no statutory completion dates for supply demand schemes at present.
However where it is necessary to apply for revised consents for increased flow, the revised
consent will incorporate a legal obligation date.
1.0.56 Requisition projects comprise off-site works and on-site works. Completion dates
are forecast completion dates for off-site works. On-site works will continue for the forecast
duration of the development activity and the CAPEX forecasts reflect this.
1.0.57 Milestones for requisition schemes with Primary Cost Driver WRE8 refer to off-site
sewerage only. Works to on-site sewerage will continue for the duration of the development
as shown by the expenditure profile.
1.0.58 Our work is planned as a continuous programme and thus a number of projects
are planned to span the AMP5/6 periods. These are identified in field 'overlap' in the 'project
general' information and are discussed in Part B9 (Overlap programme).
1.0.59 Generally projects have single drivers apart from requisition projects. For requisition
projects costs for individual schemes have been allocated between drivers using the following
principles:
allocation is done on the basis of AMP5 costs only
proportion of cost allocated to divers WRE8 and WRE9 is the proportion of scheme
cost covered by capital contribution (in AMP5 period)
proportion of cost allocated to drivers WRE9 and WRE11 is the proportion of cost for
downstream re-inforcements
adoption work has been allocated 100% to WRE14. An adoption fee which is treated
as a capital contribution is payable for this work but it is not a requisition.
1.0.60 For one scheme contribution is forecast to exceed cost during AMP5 due to CAPEX
in 2015. Here allocation to WRE14 is greater than 100%.
1.0.61 Work arising from right of connection is now allocated to New Development rather
than Growth as in the DBP.
1.0.62
As described in Part B5 commentary, the split between infrastructure and
non-infrastructure expenditure for sewerage schemes has been assessed at scheme level.
Flow attenuation storage has been treated as non-infrastructure as it is commonly provided
either as an oversized pumping station or as a shaft with pump discharge.
10
C5: Projects Database
Projects database
1.0.63 Current treatment category and size band are taken from JR08. Proposed treatment
categories are as forecast for 2015. For the June Return, size band is based on population
served rather than installed capacity, hence no change in size band has been made. Current
and planned capacities are given in Part B5 commentary.
1.0.64 Additional sludge quantity has not been calculated for growth projects. The additional
sludge produced will depend largely on the population served which will increase year on
year at numerous sites. This has been estimated for the biosolids strategy and is covered
in Part B4 commentary. Changes in sludge production due to changes in process due to
growth projects have not been considered as they are not material. Population benefiting
has been taken as JR08 population equivalent served.
Reconciliation
1.0.65 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B5.5 line 14 (infrastructure)
and line 25 (non-infrastructure).
Quality enhancement projects
Rules for aggregation
1.0.66 Wastewater quality schemes are divided into improvements (sewage treatment
works or sewerage), investigations, first time sewerage schemes and sewage sludge
management. We have mostly entered these as scheme specific except for the following:
an aggregated line has been included for prospective first time sewer applications that
are likely to be received in the remaining two years of AMP4 and the first three years
of AMP5 and from which we will determine duty and carry out necessary investment
Southminster STW has both a flow compliance and ammonia removal scheme. These
have been aggregated in the C5 database
Attleborough WFD2 phosphate scheme has been aggregated with the flow compliance
scheme
separate investigations at the same site have been grouped
a line for 'regional sludge cake transfer equipment' has been added to cover plant
required to facilitate loading of dewatered cake in bulk to and from lorries and the odour
control treatment around the cake handling operation.
1.0.67 There is no deviation from the Environment Agency final agreed NEP programme
(dated 28 November 2008).
1.0.68 Investment to meet the continuation of our policy of recycling biosolids to agriculture
has been coded to driver 'A21 - Miscellaneous' under the quality heading. We have not
coded it to driver 'SZ7' (which would otherwise seem appropriate) as this relates to a logging
up/down position and this investment is to continue the strategy as agreed at PR04.
Specific comment on field population
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
Sludge treatment investment coding
1.0.69 We have indicated the population equivalent base and current treatment type based
on JR07.
11
1.0.70 For sewage treatment works, additional sludge quantity has been calculated only
for phosphorus removal projects where we are expecting a potential increase of sludge as
a result of the chemical addition. For sludge treatment centres we have indicated the total
treatment capacity to be provided under our sludge strategy to cater for growth and
phosphorus removal schemes.
Reconciliation
1.0.71 We have reconciled the database against Ofwat table B4.4 line 5 (infrastructure)
and line 13 (non-infrastructure).
44
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
3 Logging up and down
Logging up and down Summary
Key changes since the Draft Business Plan
The key changes since the Draft Business Plan are summarised below:the Meter Optants claim has been updated to reflect the expected 2008-09 outturn
(1)
of 29,000 meters and a projected outturn for 2009-10 of 27,000 meters
the Wing mitigation costs have reduced to £17.4m and the profile of costs updated
to reflect the good progress we have been able to make to date
costs associated with the Traffic Management Act are now included
costs associated with named Strategic Water Mains schemes for growth have
been logged down (-£22.6m), but more than offset by logging up the additional
work not covered by the Final Determination in 2004 being logged up (+£30.0m),
with a net logging up of £7.4m
the costs associated with the Waste Management Regulations have increased
and are now material at £6.0m
logging down claims for Nitrates and CRoW have been excluded because they
are below the materiality limit
the Enhanced Metering and First Time Rural Sewerage claims have been excluded.
3.0.1 The following tables summarise, by service, the proposed logging up/down items at
2007-08 prices within the AMP4 period. In total the net capital impact is in the order of plus
£58.9m.
Table 3.1 Water Service logging up/down summary
Obligations (Water Service)
4.179
Growth (HEMS)
8.215
Meter optants
9.093
12.120
Traffic Management Act
6.797
Growth (strategic mains)
7.447
Water Service Total
anglianwater.co.uk
Logging down
£m
National Security Programme
Wing mitigation
PR09 Final Business Plan
Logging up
£m
1
See para 3.1.23
47.851
45
Table 3.2 Sewerage service logging up/down summary
Obligations (Sewerage Service)
Logging up
£m
Waste Management Regulations
Logging down
£m
6.017
Growth
31.752
Habitats Directive
- 26.730
Sewerage Service Total
37.769
-26.730
Table 3.3 Overall logging up/down summary
Obligations (Total Impact)
Logging up
£m
Logging down
£m
Water Service
47.851
Sewerage Service
37.769
-26.730
Overall Total
85.620
-26.730
3.0.2 An additional £6.276m
and Wing
mitigation will be spent in 2010-11 as shown in the detailed expenditure profiles for those
items, but not included in the figures above.
3.0.3 We assessed the logging up/down claims using three basic approaches outlined
below:
the logging down items are based on the costs submitted in the 2004 Final Business
Plan, adjusted for Ofwat's efficiency factors and inflated to 2007-08 prices
the logging up claims that have equivalent unit costs within the PR04 Final Determination
use these costs as a basis for the claim. They will already include the Ofwat efficiencies
built into price limits. This approach has been used for meter optants and sewage
treatment growth
for logging up items which represent a new obligation and have no unit cost basis, the
actual costs incurred or planned have been used.
3.0.4 The COPI and RPI inflation factors used to express the costs in 2007-08 prices are
those advised by Ofwat.
3.0.5 Since the submission of the Draft Business Plan the implementation of the Traffic
Management Act has started to have a material impact on our costs and these are now
included in the overall claim.
3.0.6 Taking account of Ofwat's feedback on the Draft Business Plan the logging up/down
claims the following items have been excluded because they are below the 1% materiality
threshold:Nitrates (Risby)
-£1.451m
Felsted & White Notley STWs (CRoW) -£2.956m
Linton STW
-£0.782m
46
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
3.0.7 We are also incurring additional costs associated with the implementation of the
AMP5 capital programme totalling more than £2.0m, which is below the materiality threshold.
These costs have not been included in the logging up/down claim.
47
3.1 Water service
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
48
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
49
Growth (HEMS)
Basis of Claim
3.1.9 We have seen a much faster rate of growth in our region during the first three years
of AMP4 than was funded for in AMP4. This has impacted on the amount of Housing and
Estate Mains (HEMS) and reinforcement work we have had to do. The housing market has
slowed in year four, and this is expected to continue into year five, and this is reflected in
our forecast rates of spend and contributions for year five. In year four we have still seen
much higher capital spend due to developers completing their sites in development.
3.1.10 In the PR04 Final Determination Ofwat determined that a greater percentage of
our growth schemes were related to New Development and increased the amount of
contributions that we were expected to recover.
3.1.11 We have been successful in meeting the higher contributions expected of us during
the first three years but anticipate falling slightly behind the PR04 expectation by the end of
AMP4. We expect that the additional net costs during the AMP should be added to the
Regulatory Capital Value. This is consistent with how expenditure in excess of contributions
was treated in the Final Determination.
Description of Work
3.1.12 Whilst we have not seen a large increase in the length of on-site mains, we have
seen an increase in the density of housing on new developments. We have had to do more
enforcement and off-site mains to meet the increased demand than envisaged.
3.1.13 We have also incurred additional expenditure because we have had to use barrier
pipe much more frequently than expected. This is due to a step change in the proportion of
brownfield sites being used for new developments. In fact 30% of our new developments in
2007-08 were on brownfield sites. The consequence of this is that there is a much higher
incidence of contaminated land and thus we need to lay barrier pipe. Barrier pipe is
impermeable thus preventing contamination of the potable water supply.
3.1.14 We have been successful during the first three years of AMP4 in meeting the
challenge set in the Final Determination to achieve a higher level of contributions from
developers. Thus the total net cost impact of the increased expenditure is therefore partly
offset by the increased contributions for this period. In the latter two years we expect
contributions to reduce whilst we still incur raised levels of capital expenditure as we complete
work on developments.
Expenditure Profile
3.1.15 We have updated our forecasts for the last two years of the AMP since the Draft
Business Plan reflecting the economic downturn and in particular the slump in the new
housing market. This has resulted in both lower capital expenditure and lower contributions.
3.1.16 The net additional costs are estimated to be in the order of £8.2m, as detailed in
Tables 3.5 to 3.7:
50
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Table 3.5 Final Determination expenditure profile
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08
£m
2008-09
£m
2009-10
£m
Total
£m
FD - Gross Capex
(HEMS)
12.61
12.52
12.43
12.36
12.29
62.20
FD Requisitions/other
contributions
-3.40
-3.39
-3.39
-3.39
-3.39
-16.95
FD - Net
expenditure profile
9.21
9.12
9.05
8.97
8.90
45.25
Table 3.6 Actual expenditure profile
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
£m
£m
£m
Total
£m
Actual - Gross
Capex (HEMS)
14.42
10.98
16.87
19.29
6.63
68.19
Act Requisitions/other
contributions
-3.45
-4.84
-2.74
-2.09
-1.62
-14.74
Actual - Net
expenditure profile
10. 97
6.14
14.13
17.20
5.01
53.46
2009-10
£m
Total £m
Table 3.7 Net Variance expenditure profile
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08
£m
2008-09
£m
Variance - Gross
Capex (HEMS)
1.81
-1.54
4.44
6.93
-5.66
5.99
Var Requisitions/other
contributions
-0.05
-1.45
0.65
1.30
1.77
2.21
Variance - Net
expenditure profile
1.76
-2.98
5.09
8.23
-3.89
8.22
Supporting Information
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
NB: The numbers in italics are our latest forecasts.
3.1.17 Numbers from the PR04 Final Determination. Projections based on current level
of demand for last two years of AMP4 period and subject to change, but are consistent with
supply demand forecasts being used for the AMP5 period.
51
Meter Optants
Basis of Claim
3.1.18 At PR04, our Final Business Plan assumed that 170,000 water customers would
opt for a free meter during the 2004 - 2010 period. The Final Determination (FD) reduced
this to a figure of 123,000, including those meters installed from October 2003 to September
2004, with a total 89,019 for the AMP4 period.
3.1.19 The current actual and planned profile for meter optants in AMP4 will materially
exceed the Ofwat final determination assumptions with a likely outturn totalling 128,193.
3.1.20 The projected final determination profile together with the actual and planned profile
for meter optants is shown in Table 3.8:
Table 3.8 Five Year Outputs Comparison
Meter Optants
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
Final
Determination
22,258
18,167
17,202
Actual & Planned
19,109
25,002
28,082
1.
2008-09
2009-10 Total
16,215 15,177 89,019
29,000
(1)
27,000 128,193
See para 3.1.23
3.1.21 The 2004 FD Supplementary Report, states (on p85) that Ofwat assumed 123,000
water optants from 2004 - 10, including meters installed between October 2003 and
September 2004. This means the number assumed to be installed between October 2003
and March 2005 is 33,982, which equates to 22,656 in 2004-05.
3.1.22
The six year profile is outlined in Table 3.9:
Table 3.9 Six Year Outputs Comparison
Meter
Optants
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Final
Determination
22,656
22,258
18,167
17,202
16,215
15,177
111,675
Actual &
Planned
21,977
19,109
25,002
28,082
29,000
27,000
150,170
3.1.23 During 2008-09 we have seen a continuing very high number of applications and
as a result of the current economic conditions we have seen a recent surge in applications.
Our most recent forecast indicates that the likely outturn for 2008-09 will now be nearer
31,900 meters, with the expected demand in 2009-10 in the order of 32,000 meters. We
have not been able to reflect these very recent forecasts into our Final Business Plan. We
will confirm the 2008-09 outturn in the 2009 June Return, together with an update on the
likely 2009-10 outturn, which at that time will have the benefit of a further three months data.
52
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Description of Work
3.1.24 Provision of a free water meter for domestic households when requested by the
property owner.
Expenditure Profile
3.1.25 The allowed capital profile for meter optants at 2007-08 prices is summarised below
together with the adjusted actual and planned profile based on the unit costs and efficiency
factors allowed by Ofwat in the Final Determination.
Table 3.10 Expenditure comparisons
Expenditure
2004-05
£m
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
£m
£m
£m
£m
2009-10
£m
Total
£m
Final
Determination
5.005
4.198
4.092
4.256
3.686
3.434
24.671
Actual &
Planned
4.879
3.604
5.632
6.948
6.592
6.110
33.764
-0.126
-0.594
1.540
2.692
2.906
2.676
9.093
-0.006
-0.028
0.062
0.092
0.098
0.114
0.332
Net capex
change
Net opex
change
NB: Numbers in italics are planned and therefore subject to change.
Supporting Information
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
3.1.26 Numbers from the June Returns. Projections based on current level of demand for
last two years of AMP4 period and subject to change, but are consistent with supply demand
forecasts being used for the AMP5 period.
53
Wing Water Treatment Works Extensions - Rutland Water Habitats
Creation
3.1.27 This work is in response to a new obligation under the Habitats Directive, which is
required to facilitate the increased capacity of Wing Water Treatment Works (WTW) by
90Ml/d. This increase is required to address security of supply issues within the Ruthamford
zone and accommodate increases in demand due to growth.
3.1.28 It should be noted that without these mitigation works, we would not have received
planning permission for the Wing Water Treatment Works extensions.
3.1.29 Every effort has been made to minimise the cost of the mitigation works. This
extended the planning process to the extent that construction of the Water Treatment Works
extensions and the associated pipelines started in February 2008, some two years later than
was planned in the 2004 Final Business Plan. However, this delay will not impact on delivery
of the required output by the due date at the end of 2010.
3.1.30 Whilst the need for this work had been identified in principle at the time of the 2004
periodic review, the obligation was excluded from the Final Determination because of
uncertainty about the scale of work required.
3.1.31 The Government Office for the East Midlands has signed off the required works,
which will be included in the Secretary of State's report to the European Commission on
compliance with the Habitats Directive.
Background
3.1.32 Rutland Water was constructed in 1975 as a reservoir for water supply purposes.
It is owned and operated by Anglian Water. Water taken from Rutland Water is treated at
Wing WTW prior to distribution. At the time of construction, it was predicted that the demand
for treated water would increase and so a long term investment of public sector finance was
made and the reservoir was designed to support a higher level of output than was necessary
at the time or is presently utilised.
3.1.33 Since its construction, Rutland Water has become an internationally important
nature conservation site. It is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the EC
Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of Wild Birds ('the Birds Directive') and a Ramsar
site under the 1971 Ramsar Convention. Rutland Water is also designated as a SSSI.
These designations arise because of the number of over wintering wild fowl that visit Rutland
Water.
3.1.34 The AMP4 Business Plan identified supply/demand deficits in the Ruthamford Water
Resource Zone where at least 90,000 additional homes are currently planned and likely to
increase with proposals from the ODPM Sustainable Communities Programme. Supply
challenges already occur at times of peak demand leading to production deficits and these
will increase in frequency and severity as demand in the Ruthamford zone continues to rise.
3.1.35 A planning application for the Wing WTW extension was first submitted to Rutland
County Council (RCC) in 1999. In response, RCC determined that the potential change in
the abstraction regime, which would result from the operation of the Wing WTW extension,
was likely to reduce the number of wildfowl and waders that the reservoir presently supported.
This would constitute an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and so would require
approval under Part IV of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 (the
54
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Habitats Regulations). RCC is the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats
Regulations in respect of any planning application to be determined by them as local planning
authority.
3.1.36 We have successfully negotiated a reduction in the overall footprint of the lagoons
that Natural England were originally demanding, by 12.3 hectares, thereby significantly
reducing the cost of land purchase and mitigation works by circa £2.7 million. The key
assumptions relating to surface area of water/bird is now effectively 50% of that used in the
comparable Thames Gateway project. The importance that we place on delivering a cost
effective outcome is demonstrated by the fact that our Chief Operating Officer (COO) was
personally involved in these negotiations.
3.1.37 Other savings have been realised through implementation of some technological
innovations and the use of risk and value techniques, which have reduced estimated costs
by a further £1.06m.
3.1.38 By accepting some of the risks associated with the construction of the lagoons, we
have also been able to negotiate a 3% reduction in the contract value for the mitigation
works.
3.1.39
works.
All of the above reductions are reflected in the overall estimate for the mitigation
Scope Summary
3.1.40
The proposed scheme is divided into four lagoon areas.
3.1.41 Lagoon A: An existing inlet in the north-west corner of Rutland Water which is to
be dammed to create a lagoon in which the water depth can be controlled. The lagoon will
cover an area of approximately 6.0 ha. The dam will be formed by a 260 m long sheet pile
wall with a rock armour shoulder.
3.1.42 Lagoon B: An area on the upper west edges of Rutland Water which is currently
arable and grassland fields. The landform will be completely re-shaped to form a single
3
lagoon covering approximately 29.8 ha. Some 200,000 m of earth will be moved.
3.1.43 Lagoon C: An area on the lower western edges of Rutland Water which is currently
grassland. The landform will be completely re-shaped to form four independent lagoons
3
and a wet grassland area, covering a total area of 28.5 ha. Some 130,000 m of earth will
be moved.
3.1.45
More detailed information is to be found in Appendix 1 to this section.
Expenditure Profile
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
3.1.44 Lagoon D: Two existing inlets within the south-west corner of Rutland Water which
will be dammed to create two connected lagoons in which the water depth can be controlled.
The lagoons will cover an area of approximately 19.5 ha. The dams will be formed by sheet
pile walls with rock armour shoulders, with a total length of 1015 m.
3.1.46
The net additional costs, totalling £17.4m, are detailed in Table 3.11:
55
Table 3.11 Final Determination vs Actual & Forecast expenditure profile
Project
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
£m
£m
£m
£m
£m
2010-11
£m
Total £m
Final
Determination
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wing
Mitigation
0.000
1.077
1.995
3.771
5.277
5.276
17.396
Milestones
3.1.47
Key Milestones for the Wing mitigation are in Table 3.12:
Table 3.12 Key milestones for the Wing mitigation
Milestone
Date
Enabling works commence
October 2007
Start on Site - Area B
1 April 2008
Finish Construction and commissioning Area B 31 October 2008
Start on Site - Area A
1 February 2009
Finish Construction and commissioning Area A 31 July 2009
Start on Site - Area C
1 April 2010 (Enabling works from
January)
Finish Construction and commissioning Area C 31 October 2010
Start on Site - Area D
1 January 2010
Finish Construction and commissioning Area D 31 August 2010
Beneficial Use
From 31 October 2008
Handover
Staged from 31 October 2008 to 31
October 2010
Mandated Completion Date
31 December 2010
56
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Appendix 1
Wing Water Treatment Works - Rutland Water Habitats Creation
3.1.48 Rutland Water was constructed in 1975 as a reservoir for water supply purposes.
It is owned and operated by Anglian Water Service Ltd. Water taken from Rutland Water is
treated at Wing (WTW) prior to distribution. At the time of construction, it was predicted that
the demand for treated water would increase and so a long term investment of public sector
finance was made and the reservoir was designed to support a higher level of output than
was necessary at the time or is presently utilised.
3.1.49 Since its construction, Rutland Water has become an internationally important
nature conservation site. It is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the EC
Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of Wild Birds ('the Birds Directive') and a Ramsar
site under the 1971 Ramsar Convention. Rutland Water is also designated as a SSSI.
3.1.50 The AMP4 Business Plan identified supply demand deficits in the Ruthamford Water
Resource Zone where at least 90,000 additional homes are currently planned and likely to
increase with proposals from the ODPM Sustainable Communities Programme. Supply
challenges already occur at times of peak demand leading to production deficits and these
will increase in frequency and severity as demand in the Ruthamford zone continues to rise.
3.1.51 The Business Plan proposed, and Ofwat’s Determination accepted, the need for
additional treatment capacity at Wing WTW, plus strategic mains to move water into supply.
In order to gain planning authority and the environmental regulators’ approval for the works
extension it will also be necessary to provide habitat mitigation works for Rutland Water.
This work is the subject of a sub-programme mandate. Rutland Water is a European Special
Protection Area for birds and it is necessary to ensure the protection of their habitat during
periods of large reservoir draw down as a result of the higher abstractions from the reservoir
resulting from the works extensions.
3.1.53 Part IV of the Habitats Regulations adopt a sequential approach to be undertaken
in respect of any plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA and
is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the SPA before consent
is given for the plan or project. This can be summarised as follows:
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
3.1.52 A planning application for the Wing WTW extension was first submitted to Rutland
County Council (RCC) in 1999. In response, RCC determined that the potential change in
the abstraction regime which would result from the operation of the Wing WTW extension
was likely to reduce the number of wildfowl and waders that the reservoir presently supported.
This would constitute an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and so would require
approval under Part IV of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 (the
Habitats Regulations). RCC is the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats
Regulations in respect of any planning application to be determined by them as local planning
authority.
does the SPA host a priority natural habitat type or priority species?
if not, an appropriate assessment must be undertaken of the implications for the SPA
under regulation 48
at that stage, RCC, as the competent authority, must also consult English Nature and,
if it deems it appropriate, take the opinion of the general public
57
if the assessment concludes that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity
of the SPA, consent can be given
in reaching that conclusion, the competent authority must take into account the manner
in which the plan or project is to be carried out and any conditions or restrictions to
which the consent could be made subject (mitigation). And, only if the conclusion is
that such Mitigation would mean that there was no adverse effect on the integrity of the
SPA, can consent be given
if not, consent cannot be given under regulation 48
however, notwithstanding a negative assessment, consent may still be given under
regulation 49 if the criteria set out in that regulation are met, namely
there are no alternative solutions
there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, which (provided that the
SPA does not host a priority natural habitat or priority species) may be of a social
or economic nature
if consent is to be given under regulation 49 by a competent authority other than the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must be consulted
in addition, if consent is to be given under regulation 49, regulation 53 requires the
Secretary of State to secure “necessary compensatory measures” to ensure that the
overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected (compensation).
3.1.54 The conclusion of the appropriate assessment undertaken by RCC as the competent
authority was that, despite the Mitigation that could be secured through conditions and
restrictions, approval could not be given under regulation 48.
3.1.55 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the negative assessment, we believed that there
are no alternatives to the Wing WTW extension and that the reasons for needing to extend
Wing WTW are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Approval was, therefore,
sought under regulation 49 and, in accordance with the Habitats Regulations, a package of
mitigatory and compensatory measures were developed to minimise the adverse effect upon
the integrity of the SPA and, insofar as there would remain a potential adverse effect, to
compensate for that effect and secure the protection of the overall coherence of Natura
2000.
3.1.56 Construction of the new habitats required as compensation themselves required
planning permission from RCC under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. This work
is also expected to have a significant effect on Rutland Water and its environs. Accordingly,
in October 2004, RCC issued a screening opinion that the habitat creation would require an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Screening) (England and Wales) Regulations, 1999 (SI 293) and
also an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations.
3.1.57 In response, we commissioned an Environmental Statement, which was submitted
as part of the planning application to RCC.
Solution development
3.1.58 RPS Ecology were commissioned by us in association with Halcrow Group Limited,
to undertake a study to inform an Appropriate Assessment in respect of the proposals to
increase utilisation of Rutland Water as a result of the proposed extension of Wing WTW
and in anticipation of the outcome of the review of abstraction licences (to be undertaken
by the Environment Agency) under the Habitats Directive. RPS Ecology was selected, to
58
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
undertake this study, as within their employment they had a nationally recognised expert in
Ecology and Ornithology, namely Professor David Hill, (at the time of the study, he was Dr
Hill).
3.1.59 In addition to Professor Hill, in association with Halcrow Group Limited, Anglian
Water, English Nature (now Natural England), RSPB, Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife
Trust and the Environmental Agency were consulted for their views and ideas on the technical
requirements of a scheme.
3.1.60
The specific objectives of Professor Hill’s study were:
to describe the nature conservation interest and reasons for designation of Rutland
Water as a SPA/Ramsar site
to describe the mitigation / compensation habitat creation works
to assess the construction impacts in relation to the proximity of areas of the reservoir
used by waterfowl
to determine whether these works would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the
European site and, if so, to secure adequate compensation to ensure the overall
coherence of Natura 2000.
3.1.61 Over a number of years, a considerable amount of work has been undertaken to
determine the extent and configuration of measures necessary to mitigate any adverse effect
as far as possible and, to the extent that there remained an adverse effect to compensate
for that effect and thus protect the overall coherence of Natura 2000. Of necessity, the
mitigation and compensation measures must also take account of the level of risk in their
ability to deliver sufficient habitat to ensure that no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA
would occur during the operation of the reservoir under the new water regime, or during their
construction. This is required under EU law. The Secretary of State, taking advice from
English Nature (now Natural England), must be satisfied that the measures are sufficient
and have a high probability of success so that the Directive is not breached.
3.1.62 To be successful in that objective, the new habitat must be located at the western
end of the reservoir where the main waterfowl population are found due to the fact that the
water is shallower in that part of the reservoir.
Scope Summary
3.1.63
The proposed scheme is divided into four lagoon areas.
3.1.65 Lagoon B: An area on the upper west edges of Rutland Water which is currently
arable and grassland fields. The landform will be completely re-shaped to form a single
3
lagoon covering approximately 29.8 ha. Some 200,000 m of earth will be moved.
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
3.1.64 Lagoon A: An existing inlet in the north-west corner of Rutland Water which is to
be dammed to create a lagoon in which the water depth can be controlled. The lagoon will
cover an area of approximately 6.0 ha. The dam will be formed by a 260 m long sheet pile
wall with a rock armour shoulder.
3.1.66 Lagoon C: An area on the lower western edges of Rutland Water which is currently
grassland. The landform will be completely re-shaped to form four independent lagoons
3
and a wet grassland area, covering a total area of 28.5 ha. Some 130,000 m of earth will
be moved.
59
3.1.67 Lagoon D: Two existing inlets within the south-west corner of Rutland Water which
will be dammed to create two connected lagoons in which the water depth can be controlled.
The lagoons will cover an area of approximately 19.5 ha. The dams will be formed by sheet
pile walls with rock armour shoulders, with a total length of 1015 m.
3.1.68 Significant attention has been given to the mitigation, which can be provided within
the boundary of an SPA, namely, areas A and D. However, these are not sufficient to protect
the integrity of the SPA and so areas B and C are also necessary as compensation.
3.1.69 Other options both within the reservoir area (mitigation) and outside the reservoir
area (compensation) were considered as part of the Environmental Statement. These were
discounted as not being suitable for the creation of the habitat due to:
limited area that could be provided (the minimum individual area for a successful habitat
is 5 hectare)
technical difficulty of constructing habitats within the reservoir and the fact that their
construction, which would require the drawing down of the reservoir to an abnormally
low level for the duration of the construction period would place significant risks on the
public water supply to approximately half a million people
insufficient habitat area to support the waterfowl during the period of drain down
the need for proximity to existing waterfowl populations at the western end of the
reservoir
disruption during the period of drain down to existing recreational activities
the fact that the depth of retained area of habitat once constructed would be too deep
for the waterfowl.
3.1.70 To minimise any adverse effect and any disturbance during the construction of the
new habitat areas construction must be phased over 3 years. Area B, being the largest of
the new areas, (34.8 hectares) would be constructed in year 1, Area A in year 2 and areas
C and D in year 3. The phasing in this order with area B constructed first will enable
displacement of birds from areas A, C and D and thereby minimise the impacts during the
construction. By the time that areas C and D are being constructed, area B will be functioning
and should be able to support wildfowl numbers.
New lagoons Areas B and C – compensation – outside the reservoir area
3.1.71 Area B was selected due it being a relatively flat and large area with suitable geology
for formation of a water retaining shallow lagoon. It is located close to the where the main
waterfowl population is found.
3.1.72
In the course of the consultation and discussions over the mitigation and
compensation measures, the area of lagoon was reduced in response to consultation with
the local communities.
3.1.73 The lagoons will be created to match the water depths of the adjacent existing
lagoons, which have proven their ability to support bird numbers. The basin of the lagoon
will have a gently undulating bed profile, with higher and lower points and a deeper water
channel around its edge. An earth bund will be constructed around the newly formed lagoon
reusing the earth excavated for creation of the lagoon. This will provide an adequate screen
for the waterfowl using the lagoon before the landscaping becomes fully established around
the outside of the bunds. The landscaping planting will be of a suitably mature standard and
will be agreed with Rutland County Council in consultation with the Parishes of Egleton and
60
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Hambleton. The requirements for the terrestrial lagoon topography have been developed
by Dr Roger Buisson (RPS) in consultation with Natural England, RSPB, AWS the Wildfowl
and Wetland Trust and others.
3.1.74 Consultation was made with Leicestershire County Council archaeologists with
regard to the effect of creating the lagoon. The archaeological assessment concluded that
all of the proposed habitat creation areas are of minor to moderate archaeological importance.
All recommended mitigation measures would be put in place to ensure impacts are low both
during the construction phase and for operation.
3.1.75 Leakage from the new lagoon (upper lias clay) is expected to be less than 2% of
the existing, average groundwater flow in the Marlstone Rock Band beneath Area B.
Consequently; any leakage would have negligible effect on groundwater levels in the locality.
All groundwater levels will be monitored both before construction and in the early stages of
the wetland operation.
3.1.76 A study has been undertaken to determine the effect from flies and odours when
the reservoir is drawn down. The study concluded that there would be no adverse effect.
Chironomid flies, which are non-biting, currently exist around the reservoir. Mosquitoes
could be present but are not likely to be found away from the preferred habitat. Managing
the hedgerows to the south of the lagoon to maximise its effect as a barrier for the chironomid
flies and planting a new hedgerow/trees on the western side will be provided. Seeding of
the lagoon with stoneworts should also help to reduce the number of mosquitoes.
3.1.77 The area required is on existing agricultural land, which we do not own. Negotiations
to purchase the land have been completed with landowners and farmers for the area for
lagoon B. Negotiations with the landowner of lagoon C1 and haul road continue, although
this could result in compulsory purchase measures needing to be used. We are keen to
purchase the land by negotiation rather than use the compulsory purchase powers, which
it has been given by Parliament under the Water Industry Act 1991 in order to enable it to
perform its water supply functions.
Changes during the planning application determination process
3.1.78 We have successfully negotiated a reduction in the overall footprint of the lagoons
that Natural England were originally demanding, by 12.3 hectares, thereby significantly
reducing the cost of land purchase and mitigation works by circa £2.7 million. The key
assumptions relating to surface area of water/bird is now effectively 50% of that used in the
Thames Gateway project.
3.1.80 By accepting some of the risks associated with the construction of the lagoons, we
have also been able to negotiate a 3% reduction in the contract estimates for the mitigation
works.
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
3.1.79 Other savings have been realised through implementation of some technological
innovations and the use of risk and value techniques, which have reduced estimated costs
by a further £1.06 million.
3.1.81
works.
All of the above reductions are reflected in the overall estimate for the mitigation
61
3.1.82 A water balance study has been carried out, using historic rainfall and evaporation
data, to determine the pumped inflow requirements to each lagoon to meet the water level
management requirements of the Lagoon Management Plan. The inflows to the lagoons
include: rainfall, natural stream inflows (A and D2) and pumped inflow. The losses from the
lagoons include; evaporation, seepage and leakage. The impact of climate change has
been assessed by reducing rainfall and flows whilst increasing evaporation losses. The
design pump inflows derived assume pumping over 12 hours to make use of low tariff
electricity. The key factor dictating the required size of pump was found to be the duration
of the lagoon refilling period in late autumn/early winter.
Expenditure Profile
Table 3.13 Final Determination vs Actual & Forecast expenditure profile
Project
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08
£m
2008-09
£m
2009-10
£m
2010-11 Total £m
£m
Final
Determination
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wing
Mitigation
0.000
1.077
1.995
3.771
5.277
5.276
17.396
Milestones
3.1.83
Key Milestones for the Wing mitigation works are in Key Milestones:
Table 3.14 Key milestones for the Wing mitigation
Milestone
Date
Enabling works commence
October 2007
Start on Site - Area B
1 April 2008
Finish Construction and commissioning Area B 31 October 2008
Start on Site - Area A
1 February 2009
Finish Construction and commissioning Area A 31 July 2009
Start on Site - Area C
1 April 2010 (Enabling works from
January)
Finish Construction and commissioning Area C 31 October 2010
Start on Site - Area D
1 January 2010
Finish Construction and commissioning Area D 31 August 2010
Beneficial Use
From 31 October 2008
Handover
Staged from 31 Oct 2008 to 31 Oct 2010
Mandated Completion Date
31 December 2010
Completion and filling of reservoir
Commissioning of Wing WTW
Current abstraction licence issued
EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC Habitats Directive
UK Habitats Regulations S.I. 1994 No. 2716
Decision to promote Wing WTW extn after peak demand in 95-97 drought
Consideration of Wing WTW extn for PR99, but not included in final submission.
Legal Counsel’s opinion to us that RCC would act as competent authority (not Legal advice available if needed – dated
Anglian Water) and that English Nature will play a deciding role. We could
June
propose mitigation works if we felt we could argue that we would address
potential impacts, but suggesting compensation works would be premature.
Submission of planning application for Wing WTW extn with supporting
Environmental Report by Halcrow, but without consideration of mitigation or
compensation works – following the legal advice.
Letter sent to Rutland CC stating that a Summary Report for the Environmental Covering letter included in Appendix 1
Assessment will not be submitted as considered non-statutory requirement
Rutland CC respond to our letter of 27 May 1999 stating they are seeking legal Letter included in Appendix 1
advice as to whether a non technical summary for the ES should be provided
1975
1978
1991
1992
1994
1997
1999
1999
May 1999
27 May 1999
11 June 1999
Covering letters included in Appendix 1
Available if needed
Available if needed
Available if needed
Empingham Reservoir Act
1969
Documents
Activity
Date
Table 3.15 Rutland water habitat creation scheme timeline
Rutland Water Habitat Creation Scheme Timeline
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
62
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Meeting held with Wing Parish Council and Rutland CC Planning Officer
Letter from Rutland CC confirming the planning application requires an
Environmental impact assessment
Letter sent to Rutland CC stating that we do not agree with the requirements Letter included in Appendix 1
of their letter of 5 August 1999
Rutland CC request an extension of time to consider the planning application Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter sent to Government Office for the East Midlands requesting screening
direction
Letter from Government Office for the East Midlands stating that the Secretary Letter included in Appendix 1
of State has not come to a decision whether the development is EIA
development
Letter to Rutland CC agreeing to an extension of time for the planning
application
Letter to Government Office for the East Midlands chasing screening decision Letter included in Appendix 1
Rutland CC advise that the EA is deficient in key areas including waterfowl,
aquatic invertebrates and vegetation, water chemistry, impacts on the Nene
and Wash, alternative resources
Letter sent to Rutland CC requesting clarification of their needs from their letter Letter included in Appendix 1
of 27 October 1999
Letter from Government Office for the East Midlands requesting further
information before making a decision on screening
16 July 1999
5 Aug 1999
12 Aug 1999
16 Aug 1999
24 Aug 1999
14 Sept 1999
24 Sept 1999
20 Oct 1999
27 Oct 1999
10 Dec 1999
4 Feb 2000
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Covering letter included in Appendix 1
Environmental studies sent to Government Office for the East Midlands at
Rutland CC request
16 July 1999
Documents
Activity
Date
63
Letter from Rutland CC responding to our letter of 27 October
Response to Government Office for the East Midlands letter dated 4 Feb 2000 Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter sent to Government Office for the East Midlands
Letter from Government Office for the East Midlands confirming the
development is not EIA development
Meeting held with villages of Wing
Rutland CC confirm that an appropriate assessment has been carried out
Letter included in Appendix 1
concluding that the subsequent effect of additional drawdown would have an
adverse impact on Rutland Water SPA, RAMSAR and SSSI sites
Feasibility Assessment of Mitigation Options commissioned from Ecoscope
Stakeholder / Consultee Group formed with Rutland CC, English Nature,
Environment Agency, Leics and Rutland Wildlife Trust, and RSPB.
Anglian Water Board confirm strategy for stakeholder / consultee engagement
to prepare a package of mitigation works to support the planning application
with a budget of £200k in 03/04 (WAT 03562). There was an additional £250k
in 04/05
Consultation Report produced with mitigation proposals
PR04 Supply-Demand submission with Wing WTW package for 90Ml/d extn,
pipelines, storage etc.
PR04 WQ Enhancement programme submission for Habitat Creation Scheme
as mitigation for impact of increased.
15 Feb 2000
16 Feb 2000
3 March 2000
7 March 2000
30 Sept 2000
23 May 2001
Jan 2002
Mar 2002
May 2002
Nov 2003
April 2004
April 2004
Report and meeting Note 24-11-03
Meeting Note 18-3-02
Available if needed
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter sent to Rutland CC stating we are still awaiting a response to our letter Letter included in Appendix 1
of 10 December 1999
7 Feb 2000
Documents
Activity
Date
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
64
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Meetings with Consultees to consider and agree proposals for mitigation works. Notes of meetings on
13-7-04; 13-10-04; 24-1-05 and 25-4-05
Letter from RCC confirms that the GO direction dated 7 March 2000 is still
valid
Public exhibition held at Birdwatching Centre
2 separate planning applications submitted to Rutland CC – 1 for WTW
extensions and 1 for Rutland Habitats Creation
English Nature object to planning application.
Presentation to Ofwat, Philip Fletcher
Public exhibition held at Wing
Letter from Rutland CC requesting extension of time for consideration of both Letter included in Appendix 1
planning applications
Letter sent to Rutland CC granting an extension of timefor consideration of
both planning applications
Presentation given to public at Rutland CC
Application amended to include extra 5 ha to address objection by English
Nature
Second pair of applications submitted to facilitate an Appeal
English Nature confirm their support of the planning application
2004-2005
23 Mar 2005
11 July 2005
12 Aug 2005
12 Sept 2005
28 Sept 2005
Oct 2005
29 Nov 2005
14 Dec 2005
11 Jan 2006
20 Jan 2006
3 Feb 2006
13 Feb 2006
Letter included in Appendix 1
Covering letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
PR04 files for Sept 04 representations to
Ofwat?
Draft determination by Ofwat. S-D scheme included, but WQ scheme not
allowed due to uncertainty on costs.
Aug 2004
Documents
Activity
Date
65
Letter sent to Rutland CC granting an extension of time for consideration of
both planning applications
Meeting held with parishes at Rutland CC
First consideration by RCC Council meeting, not approved. Requires further Letter included in Appendix 1
info and Full Council meeting?
Letter to Rutland CC reducing area B by 5ha and increasing area D by 5ha
Presentation to Ofwat, Melinda Acutt 30 June 2006
Presentation to local MPs at Portcullis House in area supplied
Decision to approve by RCC, subject to approval by Defra and Section 106
Agreement
Section 106 completed
Approval by Government Office East Midlands
13 April 2006
15 May 2006
24 May 2006
23 June 2006
Jun 2006
5 July 2006
25 July 2006
13 April 2007
7 August 2007
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Letter included in Appendix 1
Rutland CC request further extension of time to consider both planning
applications
11 April 2006
Documents
Activity
Date
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
66
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
67
Traffic Management Act
Basis of Claim
3.1.84 Costs arising from the implementation of the Traffic Management Act are a Notified
Item agreed as part of the 2004 Final Determination.
3.1.85 The introduction of the Traffic Management Act has had a significant impact on
how we plan schemes and interact and communicate with the 22 different highway authorities
in our region.
Description of Work
3.1.86 Compliance with the requirements of the Traffic Management Act (TMA). The costs
incurred and forecast reflect those associated with the initial trials, contractor productivity
and planning, and IT changes.
3.1.87 These costs are expected to rise in 2009-10 as more councils implement their
processes; together with the impact of permit fees. When fully implemented we anticipate
we will have to apply for in excess of 200,000 permits per annum.
3.1.88 Our TMA team has had discussions with local authorities in the Anglian Water
region about the expected level of TMA charges: some authorities are already consulting
about their proposals so the level of understanding is quite high within Anglian Water. It is
expected that 100% of local authorities will have 30% coverage of roads by June 2009 and
this will be 70% of roads by April 2010, rising to 100% over AMP5. It is envisaged that across
AMP5 there will be 95% coverage of TMA charges.
3.1.89 To ensure we comply as fully as possible with the new legislation we are therefore
investing in processes and systems to manage the new requirements. This has resulted in
unavoidable costs incurred during AMP4 that are shown in Table 3.16.
3.1.90 The costs include implementing new systems and processes, both directly and
indirectly via the increased costs of schemes where our capital partners and contractors
have had to implement changes to their business practices to comply with the legislation.
We also have the cost of the permits themselves when the councils start levying the charge.
3.1.91 We have also incurred cost as we start adapting our IT systems to ensure efficient
and effective compliance with the legislation.
Expenditure Profile
3.1.92
below:
The net additional costs, totalling £6.797m capex and £0.972m opex, are detailed
Table 3.16 Traffic Management Act expenditure profile
Project
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08
£m
2008-09
£m
2009-10
£m
Total £m
TMA capex
0.000
0.000
0.808
1.844
4.145
6.797
TMA opex
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.364
0.508
0.972
68
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Project
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
Total
2005-06
£m
0.000
2006-07
£m
0.000
2007-08
£m
0.908
2008-09
£m
2.208
2009-10
£m
4.653
Total £m
7.769
69
Growth (Strategic Mains)
Basis of Claim
3.1.93 The 2004 Final Determination listed in Table 10W, a number of defined supply
demand outputs to be delivered in the AMP4 period. We have acted effectively and efficiently
to meet the growth challenge in our region, which in some cases has led to the deferral of
funded schemes as a direct result of undertaking improvements in leakage control. In other
cases, we have met the increased demand by replacing the approved scheme with an
improved alternative scheme. In another set of cases we have deferred the approved scheme
because the demand has not grown in the way we previously forecast at PR04.
3.1.94 The corollary of this last point is that demand has materialised in areas that we did
not forecast at PR04, which has resulted in 25 additional growth schemes in response to
this demand. Given the element of unpredictability around the location growth, we do not
regard this as exceptional. This was recognised by Ofwat in the final determination
supplementary report (page 20) : "We will expect you to deliver these defined asset
improvements as set out in [Table A.3.1.8a] and annex 10W, or equivalent outputs. If outputs
are not required because of factors driving you supply/demand strategy do not follow the
course expected these may be logged down in 2009. Similarly, if extra outputs are
required, for example because demand grows faster than expected, these may be
logged up."
3.1.95 The impact of our changing growth impacts on the supply/demand outputs is outlined
in the section below.
Description of Work
3.1.96 In terms of the outputs defined in Table 10W, there are six schemes that have not
been delivered as a result of the changes pressures from growth in the Anglian Region.
The six schemes are listed below:E22-IN-01 Emneth Hungate to Wisbech
E29-IN-02 Beck Row to Littleport Reinforcement
E29-T-01 Rezone Sutton Area to March PZ
E63-T-01 Alton to Horkesley Link
L19-R-01 Saltersford WTW submerged membrane plant
E59-T-01 Coggleshall to Parkfield Tower
3.1.97
At 2007-08 prices the value allowed for these five schemes is £22.6m.
3.1.98 The decision not to proceed with the Coggleshall to Parkfield Tower scheme was
made in February 2009 because the expected growth within the zone has not materialised.
3.1.99 In response to growth pressures in other parts of our region we have, or will deliver
28 additional schemes at a total cost of £30.0m, the details of which are outlined in Table
3.17 below:
March 2009
March 2010
March 2008
March 2009
WAT-04553 - Bunwell
Norfolk Rural
WTW - Increased Output
Norwich and
Broads
Ruthamford
West
Ruthamford
West
WAT-00110 - Caistor St
Edmunds Water Supply
WAT-04234 - Rauceby
Reinforcement Main
WAT-04235 - Bedford
Growth Reinf Ph2
Biddenham
WAT-04430 – Wixams &
Ruthamford
Shortstown
West
Redevelopment
Feb 2006
March 2010
East Suffolk &
Essex
WAT-04099 - Ardleigh
Reservoir Increased
Take
3.7
0.5
2.7
£31k
Increased output to support domestic
Uprating of borehole
and commercial development in Long
capacity
Stratton
£3,181k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
3.13km of 600mm
of 700 properties and prevent 3,000
dia main
properties being added to the DG2
register
£707k
£838k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
2.8km of 400mm dia
of 600 properties and prevent 43
main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Network reinforcement arising from
2.6km of 250mm dia
increased demand from development
main
of 1,000 properties
£8k
Uprating of borehole
capacity
Increased output to support domestic
and commercial development in
Norwich
£3,848k
Total asset
Cost of
additions/
Scheme
qualitative outputs £k
Increased take from Ardleigh Reservoir Provision of at
to support increased demand within
treated water tank,
supply zone
capacity 9.0Ml
Completion Annual
date
increase/ Business need
decrease
in WAFU
(Ml/d)
Resource
zone(s)
Scheme reference
number & name
Table 3.17 Additional Strategic Growth Schemes
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
70
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
December
2008
WAT-04677 - Stowbridge
to Emneth Reservoir
Fenland
Transfer
January
2007
March 2008
Ruthamford
West
WAT-04231 Ravensden WT Mains
Reinforcement
March 2008
WAT-04453 - Cringleford Norwich and
Development
Broads
Ruthamford
West
WAT-04593 - Milton
Keynes Eastern
Expansion
March 2008
March 2008
Ruthamford
West
WAT-04258 - Findedon
Irthlingborough Rd
£658k
Network reinforcement arising from
2.20km of 350mm
increased demand from development
dia main
of 4,004 properties
£1,845k
£1,225k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
3.95km of 355mm
of 1,050 properties and prevent these
dia main
properties being added to the DG2
register
8.5km of 450mm dia
main
£280k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development 3.4km of 280mm dia
and prevent 764 properties being
main
added to the DG2 register
Network reinforcement to deal with
increasing demand in Wisbech
£266k
2.8km of 225mm dia
main
Network reinforcement to deal with
increasing demand in Milton Keynes
£631k
Total asset
Cost of
additions/
Scheme
qualitative outputs £k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
1.97km of 500mm
of 7,806 properties and prevent 197
dia main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Completion Annual
date
increase/ Business need
decrease
in WAFU
(Ml/d)
WAT-04509 - High Oak
Norwich and
(Hingham) Supply Issue
Broads
Scheme
Resource
zone(s)
Scheme reference
number & name
71
March 2010
March 2009
WAT-04247 - Colchester
East Suffolk &
Winstree Road
Essex
Development
WAT-04454 - Cedars
Park, Stowmarket,
Phase 1
WAT-04239 - Ipswich
East Suffolk &
Ravenswood &
Essex
Ransomes Development
June 2008
March 2009
WAT-04236 - Colchester
East Suffolk &
- Braiswick Rd
Essex
Development
East Suffolk &
Essex
March 2008
East Suffolk &
Essex
WAT-04456 - Chilton
Development Sudbury
£1,454k
£918k
£568k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
4.00km of 400mm
of 202 properties and prevent 400
dia main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
8.67km of 250mm
of 2,200 properties and prevent 1900
dia main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
of 2,400 properties and prevent 830
properties being added to the DG2
register
New booster station
capacity 85l/s
&0.2km of 300mm
main
£1,082k
Network reinforcement arising from
2.80km of 250mm
increased demand from development
dia main
of 750 properties
£800k
Total asset
Cost of
additions/
Scheme
qualitative outputs £k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
2.32km of 300mm
of 800 properties and prevent these
dia main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Completion Annual
date
increase/ Business need
decrease
in WAFU
(Ml/d)
Resource
zone(s)
Scheme reference
number & name
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
72
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
March 2006
WAT-04006 - Kettering
North Business Park
Growth
Ruthamford
West
March 2010
WAT-03969 - Colchester East Suffolk &
Hythe Redevelopment
Essex
March 2010
WAT-03964 Deanshanger to
Greatworth
Reinforcement
Ruthamford
West
March 2009
WAT-03604 - Dodford to
Borough Hill
6300m Service
Reservoir at Ely
3
New booster station
£2,284k
£985k
£563k
Network reinforcement arising from
7.9km of 400mm dia
increased demand from development
&6.7km of 300mm
and maintain supplies for 2000
dia main
properties.
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
0.64km of 450mm
of 369 properties and prevent 830
dia main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development 3.20km of 355mm
of 10,000 properties and commercial dia. main
development
£470k
£3,193k
£317k
Total asset
Cost of
additions/
Scheme
qualitative outputs £k
4.00km of 600mm
Network reinforcement arising from
dia. & 0.9km
increased demand from development 450mm dia. main
of 10,700 properties
from Weedon WB to
Borough Hill SR
Network reinforcement to deal with
increasing demand in Ely
Cambridgeshire
June 2008
& West Suffolk
WAT-03480 - Isleham
Area Growth
Completion Annual
date
increase/ Business need
decrease
in WAFU
(Ml/d)
Network reinforcement to deal with
increasing demand in Thetford
Resource
zone(s)
WAT-04251 - Thetford
Cambridgeshire
March 2008
Mundford Road Boosters & West Suffolk
Scheme reference
number & name
73
Resource
zone(s)
East Suffolk &
Essex
Norwich and
Broads
Ruthamford
West
Ruthamford
West
Scheme reference
number & name
WAT-04452 - Braintree
Ring Main Phase 5
WAT-04607 - Norwich
Sweet Briar Rd 18in
Reinforcement
WAT-04618
Biggleswade East
Reinforcement
WAT-04619 - Daventry
Ring Main - Phase1
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
March 2010
June 2008
August 2008
March 2010
£368k
Network reinforcement to deal with
increasing demand in Daventry arising
0.54km of 350mm
from various small developments and
dia main
preventing 170 properties being added
to the DG2 register
£318k
£150k
0.1km of 600mm dia
main
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
1.60km of 450mm
of 2,400 properties and prevent 6200
dia. main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Network reinforcement to deal with
increasing demand in Norwich incl.
UEA
£877k
Total asset
Cost of
additions/
Scheme
qualitative outputs £k
Network reinforcement arising from
increased demand from development
2.36km of 60mm dia
of 1,500 properties and prevent 430
main
properties being added to the DG2
register
Completion Annual
date
increase/ Business need
decrease
in WAFU
(Ml/d)
74
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
75
Expenditure Profile
3.1.100 The net additional costs for the six schemes to be logged down and the 28
additional growth schemes are summarised in table 3.18 below:Table 3.18 Strategic Water Mains Expenditure Comparisons
Project
Logging down (6
schemes)
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08
£m
2008-09
£m
2009-10
£m
Total
£m
-1.352
-11.432
-6.024
-3.422
-0.356 -22.586
Logging up (28
schemes)
2.298
7.788
11.248
4.229
4.470 30.033
Net Total
0.946
-3.644
5.224
0.807
4.114
7.447
76
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
3.2 Sewerage service
Waste Management Licensing Regulations
Basis of Claim
3.2.1
Since the 2004 Final Determination there has been a change to the Waste
Management Licensing Regulations, namely:
regulation 11 - requires storage areas to be underlain by an impermeable pavement
with sealed drainage, which affects the interim storage of sludge not at site of production
prior to use on non-agricultural land. This activity was previously exempt from the need
for a waste management licence.
regulation 13 – requires recovery activities to be undertaken on areas underlain by
impermeable pavement with sealed drainage and relates to the recovery of sludge at
sewage treatment works.
Description of Work
3.2.2 These regulations have required upgrades to seven major sludge storage sites. The
work at the seven sites is outlined below.
2
Whitlingham STW Sludge Storage – Provision of 28,000m of fibre reinforced concrete
impermeable storage slab and access road, reinforced concrete retaining walls,
associated drainage system and 450mm dia gravity sewer.
2
Pyewipe STW Sludge Storage – Provision 2,817m bituminous surfaced pellet storage
area, access road and associated drainage system.
2
Rayleigh West Sludge Storage – Provision of 6,125m of fibre reinforced concrete
impermeable storage slab and access road, timber panel retaining walls and associated
attenuated drainage system.
Boston STW Sludge Storage – Provision of pre-cast concrete entraining walls to existing
slab and new external drainage system.
2
March STW Sludge Storage – Provision of 5,000m of fibre reinforced concrete
impermeable storage slab and access road, timber panel retaining walls and associated
attenuated drainage system.
Bedford STW Sludge Storage - Regrading of floor slab to allow drainage of liquors,
increasing of wall height and improvements to drainage.
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
Broadholme STW Sludge Storage - Provision of retaining walls to existing slab and
new external drainage system.
Expenditure Profile
3.2.3 The net additional cost profile, totalling £6.0m at 2007-08 price base, is detailed
below.
77
Table 3.19 Net additional cost profile
Project
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08
£m
2008-09
£m
2009-10
£m
Total
£m
Waste
Management
Regs.
1.188
4.111
0.030
0.055
0.633
6.017
3.2.4 As a result of our innovative use of fibre reinforced concrete to create the impermeable
storage slabs the obligation was delivered for £0.772k less than a more traditional approach
would have cost i.e. £6.8m.
Supporting Information
3.2.5
Issue brought to Ofwat's attention in 2007 June Return.
78
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Growth
Basis of Claim
3.2.6 The 2004 Final Determination assumed that there would be 133,000 new connections
(26,600 p.a.) over the AMP4 period. The Supplementary Report lists, in Table 10S, 18
catchments where sewerage growth and new development are expected to occur together
with 21 site specific sewage treatment works, providing increased capacity of 53,509
population equivalent (PE).
3.2.7 With respect to sewage treatment, the current programme has already provided
growth capacity in excess of the final determination, with a projected total by the end of
AMP4 period in the order of 114,166 population equivalent at 21 sewage treatment works,
additional outputs of 60,657 population equivalent.
Table 3.20 Output Summary
Final Determination vs actual additional outputs
Number in FD
Table 10S sites
Forecast Actual Number Forecast Population
Equivalent
21
10
26,835
New
0
11
87,331
Total
21
21
114,166
Description of Work
3.2.8 With respect to Ofwat Table 10S, we have delivered five schemes and five further
sites are committed within our capital programme. Eight of the remaining sites are at various
planning stages, whilst the remaining three are small sites where growth is not materialising
as anticipated. We have completed or committed investment to provide 26,835 PE capacity
at ten sites.
3.2.9 The table below summaries our progress to date for STW schemes identified in
Ofwat Table 10S :
Table 3.21 Ofwat Table 10S outputs
Ref
Name
PE provided Comment
Schemes completed – actual PE capacity
WW/SD/STONST/18
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
WW/SD/RENDST/16 Rendlesham Park STW
Stonebridge STW
WW/SD/WOSPST/21 Woodhall Spa STW
WW/SD/LETCST/14
Letchworth STW
2,152
Extensions completed
Mar 2006
Works abandoned and
185 flow pumped to
Southend
2,568 Completed Sept 2006
704 Completed Nov 2007
79
Ref
Name
PE provided Comment
Schemes completed – actual PE capacity
WW/SD/CORGST/06 Corby STW
11,520 Completed March 2008
Schemes Committed – forecast PE capacity
WW/SD/CHCFST/04
Christchurch Fen View
STW
WW/SD/ELSCST/07
Elsing Heath HSW STW
WW/SD/SANDST/17
Sandy STW
WW/SD/BIGGST/01
Biggleswade STW
WW/SD/CHELST/05
Chelmsford STW
73
Flow to be transferred to
FTS sewerage
26
Flow to be transferred to
FTS sewerage
5,482 Planned completion
August 2009
Phase 1 inlet works
completed 2005-06
4,125
Planned for completion
March 2010
Schemes at planning stage – scheme priority and capacity still needs to be clarified
WW/SD/BROAST/03 Broadhome STW
WW/SD/FRAFST/10
EX RAF Finningley STW
WW/SD/FELSST/09
Felsted STW
WW/SD/GLEIST/11
Great Leighs STW
WW/SD/KIMBST/13
Kimbolton STW
WW/SD/MILDST/15
Mildenhall STW
WW/SD/SWIBST/19
Swinderby STW
WW/SD/UTTOST/20
Uttons Drove STW
Schemes on hold
WW/SD/BOZEST/02
Bozeat STW
-
WW/SD/EVENST/08
Evenley STW
-
WW/SD/HORDST/12 Horningtoft HSW STW
-
Total
26,835
3.2.10 Growth is demand led, and we have invested at sites not identified in Ofwat Table
10S. We have completed eleven schemes providing 87,331 population equivalent (PE).
3.2.11 The table below summaries our progress to date for STW schemes not identified
in Ofwat Table 10S.
80
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Table 3.22 Output additional to Ofwat Table 10S
Schemes completed
PE provided
Comment
Papworth Everard
3,435 Completed September 2006
Steeple Claydon
1,136 Completed March 2007
Foxton (Leics)
1,443 Early start scheme
Little Snoring
690
Turvey Station Road
155
Cotton Valley STW
55,172 Completed January 2008
St. Ives
480 Completed December 2007
Somersham (Cambs)
1,521 Completed February 2007
Haverhill
11,675 Completed August 2007
March STW
3,124 Completed April 2007
Bourne STW
8,500 Completed February 2009
Actual PE capacity (11 sites)
87,331
Expenditure Profile
3.2.12 Using Ofwat’s unit cost table within the Supplementary Report, expenditure for
growth at sewage treatment works would be limited to £136m (at 2007-08 price base). Using
an average unit cost approach which takes account of what was allowed in the final
determination and Ofwat's efficiency factors, the net additional estimated costs, totalling
£32.0m, are detailed below.
Table 3.23 Net additional cost profile
Capex (07-08 ptb)
2005-06
£m
2006-07
£m
2007-08
£m
2008-09
£m
2009-10
£m
Final Determination
2.847
5.985
6.079
6.417
6.682
28.010
Actual and planned
8.977
14.562
15.902
8,921
11.400
59.762
Net additional costs
6.130
8.577
9.823
2.504
4.718
31.752
Figures in italics are based on current plans and projections.
3.2.14 There is increasing growth pressure on our sewage treatment works, which could
require further additional expenditure in 2009-10.
Supporting Information
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
3.2.13
Total
£m
3.2.15 In assessing the costs associated with provision of growth for sewage treatment
works, Ofwat used the following unit costs (2002-03 price base):-
81
Table 3.24 Ofwat Capped Unit Cost Table
Size of Works
Small works
Medium works
Medium/large works
Population Equivalent (PE)
Capital expenditure per
incremental PE (£/PE)
Below 1,500
£3,000
1,500 to 10,000
£1,500
Above 10,000
£500
3.2.16 The claim for just £32m demonstrates the degree of efficiency we have achieved
in delivering the increased capacity at these sewage treatment works, compared to Ofwat's
capping target approach used in the 2004 Final Determination. If the cap in table 3.24 had
been used the claim would total in excess of £136m.
3.2.17
Issue brought to Ofwat's attention in 2007 June Return.
82
C5: Projects Database
Logging up and down
Habitats Directive
Basis of Claim
3.2.18 Within the 2004 Final Determination provision was made for compliance with the
Habitats Directive at 35 medium priority sites. The Environment Agency’s review of consents
delayed implementation of the original timetable to the extent that only seven sites will be
delivered in the AMP4 period.
Description of Work
3.2.19
Delay implementation of schemes for 28 medium priority sites into the AMP5 period.
Expenditure Profile
3.2.20 The net logging down profile for the 28 sites not being delivered in the AMP4 period
detailed in the table below:
Table 3.25 Final Determination vs Actual and Planned expenditure profile
Project (2007-08
price base)
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
£m
£m
£m
2008-09
£m
2009-10
£m
Total £m
Final Determination
5.389
21.341
26.730
Actual and planned
0.000
0.000
0.000
- 5.389
- 21.341
- 26.730
Net additional
costs
Supporting Information
3.2.21 Environmental quality enhancement programme obligation change log agreed with
Environment Agency.
3.2.22 The medium priority sites no longer requiring investment in the AMP4 period are
listed in the table below:
anglianwater.co.uk
PR09 Final Business Plan
Table 3.26 Medium Priority Sites no longer required in AMP4
Agency Identifier
Identifier
Site
Driver
A0230401
ACLEST
Acle STW
H3
A0019901
BECCST
Beccles STW
H3
A0233401
BUNGST
Bungay STW
H3
A0020201
BYLAST
Bylaugh STW
H3
A0236301
EARSST
Earsham STW
H3
A0174601
ERUDST
East Rudham STW
H3
A0236701
ELLIST
Ellingham STW
H3
83
Agency Identifier
Identifier
Site
Driver
A0237901
FORNST
Forncett STW
H3
A0238001
FOUSST
Foulsham STW
H3
A0203701
GWLDST
Great Waldingfield STW
H3
A0022201
HEMPST
Hempnall STW
H3
A0197301
LANMST
Langham (Essex) STW
H3
A0243601
LSTRST
Long Stratton STW
H3
A0022701
MATTST
Mattishall STW
H3
A0023201
NELMST
North Elmham STW
H3
A0246901
PORIST
Poringland STW
H3
A0247601
REEPST
Reepham (Norfolk) STW
H3
A0248701
SAXLST
Saxlingham STW
H3
A0023701
SCULST
Sculthorpe STW
H3
A0023901
SISLST
Sisland (Loddon) STW
H3
A0251801
STHXST
Stoke Holy Cross STW
H3
A0024501
SWAMST
Swanton Morley STW
H3
A0024601
SWARST
Swardeston STW
H3
A0253301
TNESST
Thorpeness STW
H3
A0256201
WORAST
Worlingham (Ashtree) STW
H3
A0025001
WRENST
Wrentham STW
H3
A0025201
YOXFST
Yoxford STW
H3
89
Tables
Want to know more about Anglian Water?
Visit www.anglianwater.co.uk.
Corporate Communications
Anglian Water Services Ltd
Anglian House, Ambury Road
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire
PE29 3NZ
Tel 08457 919155
Fax 01480 323112
Email: [email protected]
Registered in England No. 2366656