Category: Uncategorized

I don’t suppose anything could underline the importance of looking after chalk streams than the idea that we can lose them altogether.

I get emails now and then, notifying me of rivers I might have missed off the chalk stream map. One highlighted a little stream near Faversham in Kent: it rises only once in a blue moon now and wets a few pavements with its surprising flow. Once it turned several mills and formed a maze of waters … as the 19th century ordnance survey map shows.

Compare that to the modern satellite image which is devoid of any trace of water. As is, more worryingly, the modern ordnance Survey map.

I have overlaid the 19th watery web over the dry modern landscape to show what we have lost at Ospringe. It’s going into my index, anyway.

PS. I have redone the maps in the light of Matthew’s note below, to show the full length of the lost stream.

Why “just” enforcing existing laws and litigation to compel that enforcement is one way, but is certainly not “the only way” to go about trying to restore and protect our rivers.

Though they are members of the CaBA chalk stream restoration group (CSRG) Wildfish nevertheless reserves the right to criticise our work. Personally, after slaving away at our chalk stream restoration strategy, I find it a bit of a downer when Wildfish pick holes in it from the sidelines. But stepping back and taking the more rounded view, I know that contrary and critical voices are essential. 

Here’s mine.

Wildfish has written twice now dismissing the amendments some on the CSRG have worked hard to include in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. They say that these amendments won’t really do anything to add protection to chalk streams: a literal and pedantic viewpoint, in my view, though it may be motivated by the desire to clip the wings of claims that these amendments are THE whole of the greater protection we have all been looking for.

To be clear, we’ve never made those claims. I certainly haven’t. The amendments are one more incremental action along the way: they are one of the thousands stitches needed to heal the death by a thousand cuts our chalk streams have endured.

Of themselves, the amendments simply cite that protecting chalk streams from the impacts of abstraction and pollution is one example of the ways in which environmental outcome reports (EORs) may be drafted and aimed. 

However, no matter which way up I turn the text in the bill (see the tail of this blog for the wording), no matter how hard I squint, or how peevish I try to make myself, I just can’t see a problem with the fact that the protection of chalk streams is now cited on the face of the bill as THE example of the kinds of outcomes the EORs might seek to specify. 

As the notes make clear: “The proposed amendments add chalk streams into the definitions of  ‘environmental protection’ and ‘natural environment’, making it clear that when setting the outcomes that will drive the new regime, the Government may set explicit outcomes as to the protection of chalk streams”.

Protecting chalk streams in the planning and delivery of new development was a specific recommendation of the CaBA chalk stream strategy that Wildfish agreed with. So it is hard to discern why they would have such a problem with the LURB amendments now. Especially given that following the publication of their first critical blog on the matter back in the summer and before the government’s response amendment had been finalised I asked Guy Linley-Adams (Wildfish’s legal expert and author of the critiques) to lend his expertise to our responses to the drafts. The invitation was ignored. 

This goes to the heart of what seems to me a unnecessarily unary approach to addressing the restoration and protection of our environment in general, chalk streams in particular. Guy ends his latest blog saying: 

“The only way to protect chalk streams, and other rivers come to that, is for the Government to apply its existing arsenal of environmental legislation – which sadly lies under-used and under-enforced –  to cut pollution and abstraction.”

The “only way”? Really?

Education is quite a good way, surely. So are grants and incentives of various sorts. Actually going out there and restoring streams is pretty effective too. I know that from experience. It shows what can be achieved and exhorts others – including stakeholders like farmers, drainage authorities and even the water industry – to put their shoulders to the wheel. Wild trout don’t give a monkey’s who pays for the work or if it is driven by the law, benevolence or self-interest. 

Not only is applying existing law not the “only way”, I have to wonder if it’s even a very effective way. These so-called arsenals of legislation have been only partially effective in the past. Why will they be any more effective in the future? 

In early July, Wildfish brought this “just apply the law” refrain to the High Court over a different matter: storm overflows. Wildfish stated that they had “one simple ask of the Government: enforce the existing law to stop water companies dumping raw sewage into our rivers”.

Wildfish expanded on what they wanted the government to do:

“1. Enforce the law (in existence since 1994) and stop water companies from dumping raw sewage in rivers. 

2. Get rid of the current plan for sewage pollution (known as the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan) which effectively allows water companies to continue to break the law for a further 27 years until 2050 and develop a plan that is in line with the existing law. 

3. Ensure water companies foot the bill for any increased sewage capacity required by the law, not their customers.”

As a co-author of the 2017 WWF report – Flushed Away – that brought the issue of raw sewage discharges and lack of investment to public attention, I watched for news of this day in court with interest.

The Government’s Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan had been much maligned. It set dates by when water companies had to limit stormwater overflows to no more than 10 spills per year, or fewer than 10 if ecological harm is still detectable. Ecological harm was defined. To measure the ecological impact, monitors would be installed up and downstream of all discharges. The criticism was that this implicitly legalised spills that were already illegal under both the Water Industry Act, and more specifically the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Arguably, it also allowed water companies to address the infrastructure failings through increased bills. 

But it was, at least, a plan. Which, even if flawed, was one whole plan more than we’d ever had before. It was probably better, therefore, from the point of view of a fish or a mayfly.

Wildfish says that the law (forbidding the dumping of sewage) has been in existence since 1994: so they’re referring to the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 1994 (UWWTD) which charged water companies to “secure the limitation of pollution of receiving waters due to storm water overflows” via measures such as “dilution rates or capacity in relation to dry weather flow, or … acceptable number of overflows per year”. Note, the UWWTD referred specifically to sewage treatment works over a given size (10,000), discharging to Sensitive Areas (eutrophic) (SAe) catchments (not all UK catchments).

Before this, a more wide-ranging Water Industry Act 1991 placed a duty on water companies “to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna” and to “take into account” the effect of sewage processing “on the beauty or amenity of any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna etc”. Before this, there was a similar Act in 1951.

In fact, polluting rivers with sewage had been against the law since 1876, and in the form of various edicts and injunctions deriving from common law, since long before that – all reflecting the fact that discharges of raw sewage and other noxious matter into British rivers has been a problem since … forever. As have the tribulations of policing the issue through the courts.

The 1876 Rivers Pollution Prevention Act was largely a response to the creation of vast city sewerage systems which, in dealing with one problem – human health – created another – pollution of the natural environment. Bazelgette might have chosen the wrong option (combined sewers – which are largely the origin of these raw sewage problems today) but anyone who thinks sewage discharges are worse now than ever before hasn’t read Thomas Rammel’s report to the General Board of Health into the supply of water to and the sanitary conditions of the inhabitants of High Wycombe, written in 1850. 

This report is best not read on a full stomach. The poor of High Wycombe literally lived in shit. They shat into latrines dug yards away from drinking wells. They shat into the same stream from which they took water to drink. Open sewers ran through front rooms. People would sneak around town at night with boxes of shit and chuck it over walls to get rid of the stuff. More or less everyone who lived and worked in the furniture and factory districts suffered from what they called “low fever”, also known as cholera. Many died from it, or lived blighted lives.

The public health miracle of a working sewerage system came only slowly to High Wycombe. The wealthy councillors of the town were reluctant to spend the money. But nationally, sewerage systems progressively relieved the workers of the industrial revolution from living conditions that were inhuman, not to say lethal, by corralling all that shit through flushing latrines into pipes and washing it away downhill to rivers. 

It’s easy to forget in 2023, disgusted as we are by the raw sewage scandal, that to the very same sewerage system can be attributed about half of the increase in longevity of the British people that occurred between 1850 and 1950.

But the 1876 Rivers Pollution Prevention Act didn’t really improve things for rivers. It was rather vague about what pollution was and vague about the mechanism of enforcement. The prohibition on dumping any form of pollution into a river was absolute except that an alleged offender could clear the charge by showing they had used the “best practicable and reasonably available” means to render their discharge harmless. With sewage, the “practicable” means were actually pretty ineffective, at least until the invention of filter beds in about 1900: the best of the preceding methods was the laborious privy pan system, which collected human poo and carted it away for use as fertiliser. 

In his book The River Pollution Dilemma in Victorian England: Nuisance Law versus Economic Efficiency Leslie Rosenthal shows how the 1876 Act had been preceded for centuries by a common law, known as riparianism, based on the principle that owners of waterside property can make reasonable use of the stream so long as they do not reduce its quality or quantity for other users. Under that principle anyone dumping shit in a stream clearly violates the rights of other users downstream of them.

However, under a secondary principle (and if not ‘principle’ then practice), of the balance of convenience, polluters en masse (a civic authority, for example) might have based a defence on the fact that more people gained from the usage of the stream for carrying away sewage than the handful of private landowners who lost out due to the nuisance. English courts did not formally entertain balance of convenience arguments. But informally, Rosenthal argues, they effectively did. Judges were generally unwilling to apply remedies that would lead to economically inefficient outcomes: an example of such “inefficiency” (according to the way we value things) might might be compelling a city to spend millions of pounds in order to avoid harming the rights of one downstream river user. 

The way judges avoided enforcing such so-called “inefficient outcomes” regardless of the rights and wrongs, was to prevaricate, allowing contingencies, postponements and delays which resulted, effectively, in a continuation of the pollution with only incremental improvements. They kicked the can down the road. The courts never decisively acted to stop an incidence of sewage pollution in its tracks.

Any of this sound familiar?

Basically, a far greater number of people derive economic value from being able to shit, flush and forget as cheaply as possible, than are adversely impacted by that balance of utility and economics. The same with abstraction and being able to turn on the tap and get clean water whenever you want it. That’s worth more to society – according to the ways we value things (just to be clear: I’m not saying I agree with those ways) – than a brimful chalk stream 40 miles away.

If the courts have acted in this way for several centuries, I’m not sure why anyone would think they’ll suddenly get out the other side of the bed and apply the law any differently.

I know little about the Wildfish day in court except what is reported on their blog. The government answered the charge that the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan implicitly legalises sewage discharges which are illegal by stating that it doesn’t refer to breaches of the 1994 law. This had already been made pretty clear anyway, in the Environment Act where it was stated that the new duty stood in addition to those in the Water Industry Act and UWWTD.

Wildfish believes this exposes the plan as “smoke and mirrors” and states, “OFWAT now has no choice but to get on and enforce the Urban Wastewater Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994”.

We’ll see. But wouldn’t it be great if Wildfish aimed a complaint in the courts directly at a water company, on behalf of a downstream complainant?

Anyway, isn’t the government’s clarifying response a good outcome in that it confirms that the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan applies to ALL storm overflows, not just the ones which are operating illegally on sewage works serving over 10,000 people within UWWTD SAe catchments? Since all raw sewage discharges cause an ecological nuisance, a time-bound, functional plan to address them all according to a defined standard of ‘no adverse ecological impact’ is surely better than ONLY relying on the courts for redress under the existing laws, when history shows that is not working as well as we would like it to.

Why the image of Canute? His courtiers had flattered his power. He wanted to show them that even the power of kings was limited. Investing ALL in the courts is as foolhardy as commanding the tides. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use the courts or that having robust environmental laws is pointless. I’m saying that “just” applying the law through the courts isn’t the “only” way, as some claim.

As for the amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, much will now depend on the EORs and we very much hope and expect to see “explicit outcomes as to the protection of chalk streams” in due course. I’m betting it’s more likely we’ll get them now, than it would have been had chalk streams not been cited. This won’t amount to VE-day for chalk streams, but it will help.

––––––

Notes ref the Levelling Up Bill:

The government’s amendment to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, in relation to chalk streams reads:

Clause 143, page 172, line 3, at end insert ‘(including, amongst other things, the protection of chalk streams from abstraction and pollution)’

Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment clarifies that the definition of ‘environmental protection’ includes the protection of chalk streams from abstraction and pollution.

Clause 143, page 172, line 12, at end insert ‘(including, amongst other things, chalk streams)’

Member’s explanatory statement – This amendment clarifies that the definition of ‘natural environment’ includes chalk streams. 

Purpose and effect of amendments

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to highlight the effects of development activity on the environment. Existing processes are derived from EU Directives and will be replaced by a new system of Environmental Outcomes Reports. Instead of reporting on the significance of an effect on the environment, EORs will instead report on the contribution of that plan or project to the delivery of the government’s environmental outcomes, which will reflect the government’s ambitions set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan. Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Part (‘EOR regulations’) may specify outcomes relating to environmental protection in the United Kingdom. The amendment will mean that, the definitions of ‘environmental protection’ and ‘natural environment’ explicitly include reference chalk streams – raising their profile in the process of setting outcomes. A limited number of outcomes will be agreed across government and other outcomes are likely to cover matters such as air quality and biodiversity. These will be supplemented by outcomes specific to each of the 16 affected legislative regimes which range from forestry to marine plans. The proposed amendments would add chalk streams into the definitions of ‘environmental protection’ and ‘natural environment’, making it clear that when setting the outcomes that will drive the new regime, the Government may set explicit outcomes as to the protection of chalk streams. The amendment will enable the government to ensure the EORs suitably reflect our chalk stream interest when they are developed with DLUHC.

I’ve been updating my WFD table for flow and phosphorus.

This table shows

every chalk stream waterbody (that I know of) in the WFD assessment

the existing abstraction sensitivity band – these should almost all be ASB3 (by default if there are wild salmonids present, esp. migratory) and the banding is under review

the status for flow

the status for phosphorus

the presence of sewage works and whether or not they strip phosphorus

You can see just by scrolling through the table and watching the colours change (it starts in Dorset and ends in Yorkshire and London is kind of in the middle) the intensification of pressure around London and into Kent and Cambridgeshire. The pressure is much higher where there are more people. That’s a kind of “no shit Sherlock” observation, but it does also show – vividly – how the environment subsidises our water bills, in terms of supply and treatment.

97 out of 240 chalk stream waterbodies (40%) do not support good status for flow. But that % ranges from 16% in the Test and Itchen catchments to 80% in the Colne and Lea catchments.

88 out of 240 chalk stream waterbodies (36%) are at moderate, poor or bad status for phosphorus. But that % ranges from 0% in the Test and Itchen catchments to 61% in the Colne and Lea catchments and 51 % across the Ouse catchment chalk streams.

It kind of paints a picture, doesn’t it?

The table is HERE

Googling “Natural England chalk stream map” or “chalk stream priority habitat map” or “map of chalk streams” has proved frustrating lately because a plethora of web pages, portals and digital oubliettes lie strewn about the ether. I have been told my blog is littered with broken links and so I tried a few times over the last few days to find out what’s where and rebuild.

I suggest that it is best to start with the narrative of how the map was put together. This captures the difficulties and uncertainties involved when computer mapping software picks up drains and ditches and not winterbournes, for example.

In some ways this mapping exercise would be more accurate if done in the old school way of actually drawing lines on a page, without relying on the turning on and off of layers of “dumb” data, including too much and too little. This digital form of mapping, for example, almost completely ignores the lost paleo channels that might only be discernible by looking at ancient maps, parish boundaries or satellite images. See my illustration of a Norfolk chalk stream above: only the darker blue lines of a man-made mill-leat would show up on any DRN derived mapping: the lighter blue lines show the natural river course. We want to restore these channels, where we can: it would be a great shame if some authority or edict down the line protected a drain because the map says it’s a chalk stream and precluded the restoration of a paleo channel, because the map says it isn’t.

Natural England has handled this difficulty by showing high and low certainty layers. The high certainty layer, the dark blue lines, pick up pretty much all of the named chalk streams we know of and is essentially the “official” map of the chalk streams.

The low certainty layer picks up any waterbody of any sort within a given orbit of outcropping chalk or a chalk stream. As the narrative explains “some of these will be natural chalk streams, some completely artificial drainage channels, and some channels fed completely by non-chalk water (e.g. from impermeable soils overlaying the chalk)”.

Use mindfully, therefore.

The next job in this mapping process will consist of incrementally ground-truthing both layers and picking out or pulling in erroneous inclusions or exclusions.

Mapping lost channels will also be an important exercise, as will mapping winterbournes.

Including names, base flow indexes, type (Type A pure chalk, Type B mixed geology etc), catchment size, average annual aquifer recharge and abstraction rates etc. will all add to the functionality.

• click here to view the chalk stream priority habitat map with both high and low certainty layers

• click here to read the Natural England narrative of the process of mapping the chalk streams

It’s taken me too long to publish news of this fascinating new paper from David Sear, Ben Pears and Immy Speck, the chalk team at Southampton University, also sponsored by Natural England.

CARBON STORAGE IN RIVER AND FLOODPLAIN SYSTEMS highlights the potential for C-storage in floodplain and river environments, and reviews the effectiveness of restoration actions in increasing carbon storage relative to current degraded states.

Fascinating factoids abound, but one is that almost 20% of English peat is stored in the top 15% of chalk stream floodplains. Another, that the carbon in this peat is very old (11,000 years) and that chalk stream floodplains are amongst the stable repositories because they are wet and they don’t move around much.

This paper should be a valuable tool for those making river restoration proposals and bids, especially if we think about hydrological connectivity and the restoration of the contiguous mosaic of wet habitats including spring flushes, calcareous fen and wet woodland, which support the chalk stream.

Well done and thank you to David and co.

I’ve fielded a bit of correspondence lately because some people are confused about the status of chalk streams as a priority habitat. The confusion mostly arises out of the way in which the NE maps are published: there are several of them.

So, this is my attempt to bring a bit of clarity to the situation.

The original list of UK biodiversity action plan habitats was created between 1995 and 1999. Chalk rivers were the only riverine habitat. Other freshwater habitats included fens, machair, eutrophic standing waters and a few others.

The list was revised in 2007 in order to “ensure that the UK BAP remains focussed on the correct priorities for action and takes account of changes in the status of UK biodiversity in addition to new information and knowledge”.

The review added considerably to the list of priority habitats including other riverine habitats but the Report on the Species and Habitat Review made clear that in adding additional types of freshwater habitat, chalk rivers were not subtracted. Under the summary of major changes in Table 1 it clearly states under “rivers and streams – major changes”.

“New habitat, incorporating an existing habitat (Chalk Rivers). Further work by specialists is required to develop guidelines for the identification of river reaches which will be priorities for UK BAP action.”

That further work led to the current list of priority habitats HERE in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions – Rivers (Updated December 2011).

See the document for more detail but essentially the list of qualifying criteria in is:

1. Riverine water bodies of high hydromorphological / ecological status.

2. Headwaters (within 2.5km of its furthest source as marked with a blue line on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps at a scale of 1:50,000. Headwaters which have been significantly altered from their natural state are not included).

3. Occurrence of the EC Habitat Directive Annex I habitat (H3260 Watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation). The definition will include (but not be confined to) all river SACs designated for the feature.

4. Chalk Rivers (as given in the existing BAP definition).

5. Active shingle rivers. Data for this can come from River Habitat Surveys (Environment

Agency 2003) or indicator species of invertebrate (see criterion 7).

6. Areas or Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated for river species, riverine

features or fluvial geomorphology.

7. Species including:

i. Annex II Habitats Directive species 2

ii. BAP priority species

iii. Invertebrate species which are strongly indicative of river shingle

The BAP definition stated:

Chalk rivers have a characteristic plant community, often dominated in mid-channel by river water crowfoot Ranunculus penicillatus var pseudofluitans and starworts Callitriche obtusangula and C. platycarpa, and along the edges by watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum and lesser water-parsnip Berula erecta. 

They have low banks which support a range of water-loving plants. This plan considers action required for the river channel and banks but not for the whole catchment or floodplain.

All chalk rivers are fed from groundwater aquifers, producing clear waters and a generally stable flow and temperature regime. These are conditions which support a rich diversity of invertebrate life and important game fisheries, notably for brown trout Salmo trutta, brook lamprey Lampetra planeri, salmon Salmo salar, crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes and otter Lutra lutra are among the species listed on Annex II of the EC Habitats Directive which chalk rivers support.

Most chalk rivers have ‘winterbourne’ stretches in their headwaters. These often run dry, or partially dry, in late summer because of lack of rainfall recharging the aquifer. A characteristic range of invertebrates has adapted to these conditions, as is the brook water crowfoot Ranunculus peltatus. 

The list of priority habitats has not changed since that date, but the mapping has slowly caught up with the definition and in that mapping lies some confusion.

There are several maps of priority habitats: the one you will find easily if you google “river priority habitat” is – as it clearly states in the summary HERE – the map “of rivers and streams that exhibit a high degree of naturalness”.

The map which you won’t find easily is the MAP OF CHALK RIVERS which, as it clearly states in the summary is a map of:

“Priority Habitat Chalk Rivers, based on Environment Agency Detailed River Network v3. Data prepared Autumn 2021.Data shows the location of Priority Habitat Chalk rivers and Streams.”

There is also another map HERE where you can toggle on and off the different layers for different priority habitat types.

Chalk rivers were the proto riverine priority habitat and when they were designated as such it was because they supported communities of ranunculus, starwort and berula, because their low banks and high water-tables support varied communities of riparian water-loving plants, and because they are spring-fed, altogether meaning they support a very large bio-diverse community of designated flora and fauna (see my previous post).

Biodiversity net gain is a new approach to development and land management which aims to protect the natural environment by ensuring it is measurably improved as part and parcel of any given development. 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that development should contribute to and enhance the local environment, minimise impacts and provide net gains for biodiversity. Plans should: 

‘promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species’.

The Environment Act sets out the key components of the biodiversity net gain system; essentially a minimum 10% net gain (assessed using a biodiversity metric) which may be delivered at or away from the development site, and which must be secured for a minimum of 30 years. 

None of this changes or undermines existing legal protections.

Some habitats, however, are deemed to be too important for the principle of off-setting a loss via the net 10% gain that this processes entails. 

Under the new system these special habitats will be called ‘irreplaceable habitats’. They have been defined in the NPPF as habitats that are ‘technically very challenging or time-consuming to restore, considering factors such as age, uniqueness, species diversity, or rarity’. 

At the moment the “example” list of these habitats includes: ‘ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, blanket bog, limestone pavement, sand dunes, salt marsh and lowland fen’.

I very much hope when the final list is confirmed that chalk streams and their mosaic of supporting habitats – winterbournes, wet woodland, calcareous fen, spring-lines, peat-rich floodplains – will be on it. This would provide a higher level of protection and demand bespoke reports prepared as part of the planning application.

There is a very good case for putting chalk streams on the list, if not at the top of it.

Chalk streams are the most bio-diverse of any British freshwater system. So, if the river corridor is the most biodiverse, or potentially biodiverse part of any given landscape, chalk stream and their floodplains must – ipso facto – be more biodiverse than any other part of the English landscape. 

Chalk streams are a lowland, cold-water, spring-fed river system, occupied in their upper reaches by rheophilic species of flora and fauna. They are home to a number of threatened species, not least a genetically distinct race of Atlantic salmon that are unique to the Wessex chalk streams: also the southern damselfly, Desmoulins whorl snail, the white-clawed crayfish. They are a global hotspot for species of invertebrate adapted to ephemeral streams: the scare brown sedge and the winterbourne stonefly.

Chalk streams are globally rare and – of course – most chalk streams are in England. 

However, they are inherently vulnerable, as described in section 5 of English Nature’s 1999 publication Chalk Rivers Nature Conservation and Management:

• they feature flora and fauna communities adapted to stable flow regimes that are easily disrupted by abstraction, development, agriculture

• they are low energy systems that are less able to self-cleanse or self-repair

• they are located in parts of England with lower then average rainfall and high population density, imposing intrinsically high pressure on water resources

• historic management and development of chalk streams had left a legacy of modifications which can exacerbate modern environmental pressures

And by Sear et al in the paper Defining reference conditions for chalk stream and Fenland natural channels which shows that:

• the geomorphology and natural bed substrate of chalk streams are relics of processes which have long since retreated from our landscape. 

• once gravel beds have been removed, there is an insufficient supply of gravel to replenish these through natural processes. 

In other words, they are globally rare, biodiverse and home to threatened and rare species, but vulnerable to damage, and relatively incapable of self-repair, especially within time-scales that we can relate to. Once gravels are removed we would need to wait for another ice-age for the stream’s physical structure to be re-set.

What exactly constitutes an irreplaceable habitat has, unsurprisingly, sparked some debate, but there appears to consensus around the ideas that these habitats support rare or endangered species and provide critical ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, and flood prevention, while their loss or damage can result in significant, long-term, and sometimes irreversible negative impacts on local and regional ecosystems.

Again, you can’t do much better in those regards than to preserve and restore rivers, especially chalk streams. 

A recent paper by Sear, Speck and Pears – Carbon storage in river and floodplain systems – shows that 18% of English peat is stored in the top 15cm of English chalk stream floodplains. Dig deeper and that % goes up: and you can dig deeper. At the river’s edge the peat is usually one meter deep in my experience on East Anglian streams, but up to three to four meters deep in certain parts of the catchments where marsh conditions once prevailed. Carbon storage in river floodplains is quantitatively comparable to other fens and marshes and need to be recognised as such. Carbon buried in floodplains is old, and in chalk streams, the oldest of all @ circa 11,000 years. It is sensitive to draining and drying. On the other hand, there is the potential to use floodplains, especially chalk stream flood-plains, to sequester and stably store carbon through the restoration of water-table levels, wet-woodland, calcareous fen and marsh: all exactly the kind of advanced river restoration prescriptions the chalk stream strategy is pushing for.

In other words, if we protect and restore chalk streams, surely we deliver the objectives of preserving and enhancing biodiversity and other ecosystems services about as effectively as it is possible to imagine?

***

Here’s a list of designated priority species supported by chalk streams and their riparian habitats (from EN chalk rivers conservation and management).

Plants

Ranunculion fluitantis

a) R. peltatus

b) R. penicillatus subsp pseudofluitans

c) R. fluitans

Oenanthe fluviatilis

Invertebrates

Austropotamobius pallipes (Crayfish)

Oulimnius troglodytes (Beetle)

Riolus cupreus (Beetle)

Riolus subviolaceus (Beetle)

Agabus biguttatus (Beetle)

Metalype fragilis (Caddis)

Ylodes conspersus (Caddis)

Baetis atrebatinus (Mayfly)

Paraleptophleba wernerii (Mayfly)

Coenagrion mercuriale (Dragonfly)

Valvata macrostoma (Snail)

Vertigo moulinsiana (Snail)

Pisidium tenuilineatum (Mussel)

Fish

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Bullhead (Cottus gobio)

Brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri)

River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)

Spined loach (Cobitis taenia)

Grayling (Thymallus thymallus)

Birds

Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis)

Cetti’s warbler (Certia certi)

Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianis)

Green sandpiper (Tringa ochropus)

Reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus)

Water rail (Rallus aquaticus)

Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus)

Snipe (Gallinago gallinago)

Redshank (Tringa totanus)

Mammals

Otter (Lutra lutra)

Water vole (Arvicola terrestri)

Water shrew (Neomys fodiens)

Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii)

Local farmer dredges River Rib

These pictures from the River Rib are truly shocking. I very much hope the Environment Agency will take this seriously.

At the news the other day that the government had agreed in principle to draft an amendment in the Levelling Up Bill to specifically cite chalk streams as intended recipients of protection from the impacts of abstraction, pollution and damage to physical habitat, certain critics took less time than Usain Bolt does to cover 100 meters before trolling out the well-worn cavil that protection has “failed” to protect the existing SSSIs and SACs and is therefore a waste of time. On the grounds that you cannot win an argument on Twitter I’ve never bothered to pick an argument over what “failed” means in this context, or the fact that the “unfavourable condition” statistics cited in previous posts making the same argument have often applied to the whole assemblage of units, not just the river, or that the bar to favourable condition is generally much higher than good or even high WFD status or that it is empirical fact that abstraction rates are lower and phosphate stripping rates higher on designated streams or that the reasons a river unit might be considered unfavourable go well beyond the WFD tests and might include, for example (and completely off the top of my head) excessively stocking farmed fish, overly managing the riparian parts of the the river, and using impoundments to retain water levels etc.

Ali Morse, water policy manager with the Wildlife Trusts, did take that step, however and answered back with some excellent points which I repeat here for those sensible folks who avoid the flying monkey cage-fight that is now renamed as X.

To the post which read:

“There are already 11 chalk streams designated as either SSSIs and or SACs all of which has done absolutely nothing to protect any of those rivers, nothing! Not one of them is anywhere near being in ‘Favourable’ condition. The eNGO lobby getting played yet again by government.”

Ali replied:

Ok let’s unpick this one – a 

Q: Are all designated #chalkstreams in good condition? A: certainly not. But does that mean protection has achieved ‘nothing’; is it worthless? (1/x)

Eleven chalkstreams are designated as SSSIs, four of which are further protected, at least in part, as SACs. As important sites, targets for these designated rivers are more stringent than those for other rivers. So how are they faring against these? (2/x)

Well, it’s hard to say. The River Kennet for example was recently assessed as unfavourable, but recovering. But most others – the Test, Itchen, Bere Stream, Nar – are awaiting new assessments. Prior assessments for some are now ~10yrs old. (3/x)

designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteFeatureCondition

So are they at least in better condition than non-protected chalkstreams? Well, WWF’s 2014 report looked at whether chalkstream waterbodies were at ‘Good’ status (a Water Framework Directive classification) and found that designated rivers were no better off than others (4/x)

But that doesn’t show the whole story – a WFD status of Good can (rightly) only be awarded if ALL parameters are classed as good. For ecology, most English rivers (86%) fail this standard – but could protection mean that designated chalkstreams are closer to achieving it? (5/x)

If we look at phosphate – the most common cause of WFD failures – does designation offer any merits? On some fronts, yes it does. For example, SAC chalkstreams have a higher % of sewage treatment works that strip phosphate, meaning cleaner discharges. (6/x)

SSSI streams also benefit. Then those where the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive dictates that P-stripping is required. So these protections have driven investment. Similarly, designated rivers fare better with abstraction, with reductions being prioritised here first. (7/x)

They are also often a target for habitat restoration, with the designation prompting investment from project funders and partners. See for example the Test & Itchen River Restoration Strategy https://youtu.be/Lq_w0FAccPI (8/x)

Yet the designation certainly doesn’t protect against everything. In particular, it can’t control what happens in the wider catchment. Runoff from farmland, pollution from urban areas, invasive species and other external pressures remain prevalent. So we need extra levers. (9/x)

Planning is one such gap, esp. as population growth & demand for new housing are high in the chalk counties of S&E England. Current rules don’t give chalkstreams adequate protection, whether harmed directly (at development sites) or indirectly (e.g. via water abstraction) (10/x)

I’m not sure how specific consideration of chalkstreams in planning decisions could be a bad thing – other than perhaps from the perspective of non-chalkstreams which won’t benefit. But we have to start somewhere. (11/x)

In theory the promised clause in the LURB will require that reports provide explicit info on harm & how it’ll be avoided / mitigated / compensated, giving Local Authorities the grounds on which to base decisions. We’re yet to see Govt’s wording but it’ll be a version of… (12x)

“protection for chalk streams…so as to reduce the harmful impacts of excessive abstraction & pollution and improve their physical habitat”. And if good decision making doesn’t follow, it will at least give others stronger grounds on which to challenge. (13/x)

Worth noting too that additional protections like consideration via planning rules will probably most benefit those ‘Cinderella’ chalkstreams currently neglected by designations – gems like the Meon, the Stiffkey, The Gypsey Race… (14/x)

…and that those protections, in whatever form, were the collective wish of stakeholders that contributed to the formation of the CaBA Chalkstreams Restoration Strategy – yes eNGOs but also fishing clubs, community groups, campaigners, practitioners, academics & others. (15/x)

So, maybe these new planning protections won’t be effective – but seems an odd thing to shout down. Surely our chalkstreams need every lifeline we can offer them? And this isn’t the only solution we’re demanding, not by a long way. (/End)

Thank you Ali. Very well put.

An update is long overdue following the wonderful news from Tuesday 18th July that the government has agreed to provide explicit consideration to chalk streams in the Levelling Up Bill. A bill designed amongst other things to restore a sense of community, local pride and belonging, especially in those places where they have been lost. The picture above is of the River Wye disappearing under the streets of High Wycombe: it shows exactly this kind of loss, poignantly and vividly.

This important campaign to Level Up forgotten chalk streams began when Nikki da Costa spoke with Richard Meredith Hardy about the plight of the River Ivel and chalk streams more generally. Nikki, as her page on gov.uk states, served as Director of Legislative Affairs for 2 Prime Ministers –  Theresa May and Boris Johnson – and is a recognised authority on the UK’s legislative and parliamentary processes. Her expert knowledge proved invaluable. Nikki pointed out the potential for the Levelling Up Bill to provide specific protection and a driver for improvements and restoration to chalk streams.

Richard put Nikki in touch with myself, Stuart Singleton-White (Angling Trust) and Lord Trenchard, a supporter of chalk streams. Between us we started on the case for a simple amendment to the Levelling Up Bill.

This amendment catalysed an excellent debate at 2nd reading of the bill in the House of Lords, during which it was clear that this issue had cross-party support and lots of it. With an assurance from Lord Benyon – also a passionate advocate for chalk streams – that the government would look into the matter, the amendment was withdrawn, as expected.

However, at 3rd reading on Tuesday 18th July, Lord Trenchard made a further impassioned and expert case for the inclusion of the amendment – it is worth reading this in full (copied below) – backed by cross-party support in the form of speeches by the Earl of Caithness, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Pinnock.

With the announcement by Minister the Rt Hon Rebecca Pow MP at the launch of the chalk strategy Implementation Plan on the 15th June that the government would start work on a Chalk Stream Recovery Package to be published by the end of 2023, it had become clear that this amendment to the LURB would provide exactly the kind of policy lever that package required. Lord Trenchard made this case most eloquently.

Lord Benyon replied, “having heard the views of this House on the importance of chalk streams, and especially the passionate arguments from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I can confirm that the Government intend to support the principle of the amendment.”

With such a breadth and depth of cross-party support gathering pace across all parts of government, I feel optimistic we are truly getting somewhere.

Sir Oliver Heald’s press release states:

“The debate in the House of Lords on Lord Trenchard’s amendment 102 to the Levelling-up Bill to give protection for chalk streams in the planning process was held last night at 7pm. At the conclusion, Minister Richard, Lord Benyon, agreed to bring forward a Government amendment to provide this protection. The Trenchard amendment was drafted with help from Oliver Heald MP and Nikki Da Costa (Ashwell). Lord Trenchard is from Standon and the amendment was also signed by Labour’s Sharon, Lady Taylor of Stevenage.

This was a triumph for Lord Trenchard and chalk streams’ campaigners in Hertfordshire and elsewhere. Hertfordshire has 20% of the World’s chalk streams which are as important ecologically as rain forests. There are 8 chalk streams in North East Hertfordshire: Upper Rhee, Ivel, Rib, Quin, Ash, Beane, Mimram and the Lea. The local press previously covered Oliver’s meeting in April with Lord Benyon to press the case.

Commenting Oliver Heald said:

“I am delighted that Lord Trenchard has had this great success in persuading Government to put the protection of chalk streams in planning on a statutory footing. I also pay tribute to campaigners such as Charles Rangeley-Wilson and Nikki Da Costa for their help and briefing.”

The debate in full:

Moved by Viscount Trenchard 

102: Clause 143, page 172, line 9, at end insert—

“(e) protection for chalk streams in England so as to reduce the harmful impacts of excessive abstraction and pollution and improve their physical habitat”

My Lords, my Amendment 102 is identical to my Amendment 372ZA, which was debated in Committee on 18 May. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lord Caithness, for adding their names in support of this amendment. I declare my interest as the owner of a short stretch of the River Rib in Hertfordshire.

I was heartened by the strong support I received from noble Lords on all sides of the House when I debated this amendment in Committee. I believe the case for special protection for our beautiful chalk streams was well made and widely supported then, and I will not repeat it at length today. I was also grateful for the support of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Benyon, for the aims of my amendment and for his absolutely clear commitment that further conversations would be had with myself and others about chalk stream restoration and how the Government could better make sure that it continues to be a priority.

I was less than wholly happy that the Minister stopped short of committing to bring back the Government’s own amendment to give chalk streams the protection they uniquely need. I am a little concerned at his statement that, given the need to capture the environment as a whole in these provisions, he hoped that I would accept that it would not be appropriate to draw out granular considerations in this definition.

I thank the Minister and his Defra officials for keeping their promise to meet me to discuss further why I believe it necessary to give chalk streams the special protection that inclusion in the Bill would provide. I do not think that many noble Lords disagree with the need to protect our beautiful chalk streams, which are unique to north-east Europe and of which some 85% are located in England. The Minister is a keen fisherman and I hope that, as he has been casting his fly over the last few weeks, he has pondered this question further. I know how supportive he has been of the tireless work done by Charles Rangeley-Wilson and others who developed Catchment Based Approach, a partnership with the Government, local authorities and other interested organisations.

As I mentioned in Committee, CaBA has developed a chalk stream restoration strategy, the primary recommendation of which was “one big wish”. This is supported by all the organisations, companies and agencies involved in the strategy’s development, and by the consultation responses from stakeholders. “One big wish” calls for:

“an overarching statutory protection and priority status for chalk streams and their catchments to give them a distinct identity and to drive investment in water-resources infrastructure, water treatment … and catchment-scale restoration”.

I remind your Lordships of the Government’s response to “one big wish”:

“Defra is currently looking for opportunities to deliver on this recommendation. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill provides an opportunity to consider how stronger protections and priority status for chalk streams can fit into reformed environmental legislation”.

However, as I expect my noble friend Lord Caithness will tell your Lordships, on 23 June, the Minister said in reply to my noble friend that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is no longer being considered as a means to address this issue. He said that the Government continue to support the work of the chalk stream restoration group and are committed to looking for opportunities to deliver on the Defra-led recommendations in the strategy.

At the launch of the chalk stream strategy implementation plan eight days previously, on 15 June, my honourable friend Rebecca Pow announced that the Government’s response to this one big wish would be the creation of a chalk streams recovery package by the end of the year. She revealed that the exact identity and contents had yet to be determined, but essentially this package represents, as an answer to the one big wish, a collation of existing and potential or planned policies, levers and economic drivers that can be used to effect the restoration of chalk streams. The chalk streams recovery package, however, may not provide the clear designation and protection called for in the one big wish, but it is intended that it should have the same outcome by means of a more disparate range of levers.

I am sure that my noble friend the Minister recognises that the rejection of my amendment on the grounds that much is being done elsewhere would indicate that the Government are not entirely sincere in their commitment to the creation of a chalk streams recovery package within this year. Surely, my noble friend will agree that this amendment would provide exactly the kind of lever that the recovery package needs—in this case, specifically helping the restoration of chalk streams in those places where the Bill is designed to effect economic and especially social and natural recovery. In these circumstances, it is disappointing that my noble friend has not yet come forward with a different way to provide the specific priority status which the Government have recognised is needed. If the Government’s initial thoughts about how to do this are now no longer the chosen way to achieve what must be achieved, why do they not back my amendment or introduce their own similar one? I cannot understand what the downside is.

As your Lordships are aware, an important purpose of the levelling-up Bill is to restore a sense of community, local pride and belonging, especially in those places where they have been lost. These things are all captured by the relationship between the community and its river. Among many towns that have been identified by CaBA and which would benefit immeasurably from this amendment are Baldock, High Wycombe, Chesham, Rickmansworth, Hertford, Luton, Welwyn, Bishop’s Stortford, Crayford and Dartford, Ashford and Chartham, Dover, Bury St Edmunds, Fakenham, Horncastle, Louth, Driffield, Bridlington, Warminster and Croydon. Some of those towns are among the most socially deprived in the country—for example, Bridlington—and all are towns which, along with their wider environs, could be immeasurably enriched by a restoration of the green spaces and stream corridors of the potentially beautiful chalk streams that flow through them.

This amendment would require chalk streams to be considered specifically in a way that they simply have not been before, when there are major infrastructure projects or developments, and they deserve specific consideration because of their rarity and what has already been lost. We recognise that this amendment affects only a subset of major projects, but it is precisely those kinds of projects where the biggest damage could be done. If my noble friend argues that the broader environmental designation would require chalk streams to be considered anyway, there is no additional burden in accepting the amendment. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will have some good news to tell us when he replies to this debate. I beg to move.”

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

“My Lords, we find that we form some unusual alliances in your Lordships’ House, especially in relation to protecting our environment. On this topic, I was very happy to put my name to Amendment 102 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The reason I did that was that I am lucky enough to have spent my life living in the wonderful county of Hertfordshire. For those of you who are not aware, Hertfordshire contains over 20% of the world’s unique and special, natural and precious chalk streams. The noble Viscount has already explained that this country is the custodian of the vast majority of this precious natural resource—more than 85%. To have 20% of that in my county is a real reason for doing all that I can to ensure that they are protected.

From the Rivers Chess and Colne in the west of Hertfordshire and the River Beane, which runs alongside my town, to the Rivers Lea, Stort and Ash in the south and east of the county, along with many others, we are blessed with what should be vital water resources, providing habitats for a huge diversity of species, from damselfly to salmon. Sadly, as we have heard, they are under increasing pressure from overextraction and pollution and, while progress is being made through the catchment-based approach mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, they are still struggling and under pressure. We need to improve their health and focus on that through the chalk stream strategy. There is still much more to be done.

I am most grateful to the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which does so much work in this area and has been incredibly helpful in providing information for me. Our precious monuments and ancient buildings have huge protection in the planning system through the mechanism of listing, but we do not seem to take these precious natural resources as seriously in this regard. I support the aims of the amendment in attempting to do that by ensuring that any development in the area of chalk streams explicitly considers the impact on them and sets out what mitigations will be needed. If our chalk streams were buildings, they would be UNESCO heritage sites. Let us protect them as though they were.”

The Earl of Caithness (Con)

“One of the problems that I raised during our debate on 18 May in Committee was the problem of surface water run-off from farms and roads, which was causing problems for our rivers. I am extremely grateful to and would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter that he sent me on 23 June, in which he commented a bit more on the points that I raised. The interesting thing about that letter was his comment on the surface run-off from roads. He said that Defra was

“working with the Department for Transport to reduce the impact of the strategic road network and roads managed by local highways authorities on water bodies”.

It just shows what an important cross-government issue this is.

The difficulty that my noble friend has is that he has to work at one remove from the local authorities. The reason I stress the local authorities is that the next day, on 19 May, I was on the River Piddle, a lovely chalk stream, and at 3.30 pm the river was gin clear—it was what a chalk stream should be. We had quite a good thunderstorm and within an hour that river was chocolate brown; it was full of silt and run-off, and the roads were under water. There was run-off from the farmland adjacent to the river—the whole aquatic environment of the river was affected by that thunder- storm; it was a short-term disaster for the river, created by human behaviour. Something similar happened to us humans when we had the smog in the early 1950s. We tackled that problem; it was a manmade problem and we tackled it with the Clean Air Act. It is equally important that we now tackle the problems facing our rivers. It will take a major effort by the Government and across government to do that.

All our rivers are important, but why are the chalk streams just that bit more important? It is worth reiterating that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England; they are our equivalent of the rainforests. We have a special responsibility to those rivers, and if we do not give a lead to the rest of the world on such an important issue, we will not be doing nature justice.

There are three key indicators of the ecological health of rivers: water quality, water quantity and the physical habitat. The key to getting all of those right is management. The Government will need every single tool in the toolbox and every policy to be able to take the necessary action to fight off the vested challenges from all quarters that they will need to do to establish chalk streams to the standard that we expect and fulfil the one big wish, so rightly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Trenchard.

The Bill is about regenerative action and levelling up, and it is intended to give places a sense of identity. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, many of the rivers flow through towns as well as the countryside. The restoration of the rivers could bring huge opportunities and benefits to those towns and to the countryside for both nature and humans. If we do not take this opportunity, we will be letting nature and ourselves down.”

Baroness Pinnock (LD)

“My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville is unfortunately unable to attend today, as she is not well. I will say a few words on her behalf.

First, I endorse entirely what has already been said about the environmental importance of chalk streams. I think it was David Attenborough who described them as one of the rarest habitats on earth. If David Attenborough says that, we must listen and listen carefully.

Secondly, I want to say something about pollution and about water extraction. The Environment Agency has responsibility for giving permission to water companies for the level of extraction, be it from rivers or aquifers. Indeed, there are aquifers in Yorkshire—not in my part, but in the East Riding—which Yorkshire Water extracts from. What I do know is that aquifers take a long time to refill after periods of extraction. I look to the Minister to respond on water extraction from aquifers. The amount of water taken from aquifers obviously then impacts on the flow in chalk streams, which is essential for their protection.

What I want to say about pollution from sewage overflow discharge is this. About 150 years ago there was a Conservative Prime Minister in this country who had a policy of sewage. That is exactly what this country needs now. A Conservative Government run this country, so perhaps they can adopt Disraeli’s policy of sewage. It would be a bit late, but it would not be before time if they did.”

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)

“I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and others who have spoken. The noble Baroness should read our Plan for Water, which does exactly what she said. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register.

I turn to Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I defer to no one in the verbal arms race that usually takes place in these debates about who can be the greatest supporter of chalk streams. I am passionate about them, and I want to see our chalk streams, which are one of the most valuable ecosystems in these islands, restored to pristine health. I note the passion from across the House on the need to protect these habitats further.

The Government recognise that chalk streams in England are internationally important and unique, and in many cases in poor health. We are committed to restoring England’s chalk streams. We have recently reaffirmed this commitment in our Plan for Water, which I just referred to, which recognises chalk streams as having special natural heritage.

In last year’s implementation plan for the Chalk Stream Restoration Strategy 2021, we committed to review the National Planning Policy Framework to

“consider how to further reflect the value of chalk streams in planning”.

We agreed to develop and publish a chalk stream recovery plan by the end of the year. I am grateful to people such as the aforementioned Charles Rangeley-Wilson and others who have been involved in bringing forward the catchment-based approach, which is absolutely leading on this.

I turn to the substance of the amendment. Clause 143 draws on the relevant definitions in the Environment Act and includes protection of the natural environment from

“the effects of human activity”,

as well as

“maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment”.

The natural environment includes the habitats of plants, wild animals and other living organisms, and explicitly includes water. The Government’s initial view is that this provides sufficient scope to address issues affecting chalk streams.

However, having heard the views of this House on the importance of chalk streams, and especially the passionate arguments from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I can confirm that the Government intend to support the principle of the amendment. However, there are some concerns with its exact drafting. We are concerned that, as drafted, it could cast doubt on the breadth of existing provisions that stem from the Environment Act and increase the risk of legal challenge to future EOR regulations—a situation we have worked really hard to avoid. However, I absolutely want to get to where my noble friend is and see the recognition of chalk streams in the Bill. I therefore undertake that the Government will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to provide clarity and reassurance regarding chalk streams in the context of environmental outcomes reports.

I pay tribute to my noble friend for bringing this amendment forward. I hope he will continue to work with me to ensure it meets our shared intention of protecting England’s chalk streams.”

Viscount Trenchard (Con)

“My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extremely welcome reply, and I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. I also thank my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald, who is in his place on the steps of the Throne, for his tireless work in supporting our chalk streams, of which I think eight flow through his constituency. We should also remember the late Lord Chidgey, who did so much good work campaigning for chalk streams.

I clearly should have placed more trust in my noble friend to bring back the right answer. I thank him warmly for his very welcome words; I take them to mean that he will table an amendment at Third Reading that is substantially the same as mine and that will recognise chalk streams as a different and specific part of the environment, deserving special protection. Taking his most welcome answer, for which I am most grateful, into account, I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.”