FT/EA/2024/0299 - [2025] UKFTT 01138 (GRC)

AWL submitted a 39-page response, including a chronology, legal and factual framework along with a (redacted) witness statement from its Head of Water Resources and Environment. The Tribunal panel has read all the documents thoroughly, but we do not summarise the entirety of the documents, it being impractical and unnecessary to do so. Essentially, AWL supports the Commissioner’s decision and resists the appeal, as below:

The information requested concerns “Abstraction Licences” that contain the particular locations of boreholes for the abstraction of water for consumption in the geographical area for which AWL is responsible under section 6 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

AWL considers that this detailed information could pose a risk to public safety and/or national security such as a terrorist attack or criminal act such as vandalism on water supplies for the public at such a borehole. Disclosure of their precise location under EIR to the world would adversely affect (by endangering) national security and public safety.

Abstraction of water through boreholes is not regulated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2017 and so there can be no “EA permit” for a borehole. Instead, abstraction is regulated by means of an “Abstraction Licence” which are numbered enabling their particular identification. Importantly, they contain a 12-digit national grid reference and their particular purpose of the extraction. The Appellant incorrectly categorised his request as being for “EA Permits”.

The result of the Request is to ask for information that could pinpoint borehole locations. The Appellant remains insistent that the “Abstraction Licence” reference numbers be provided. It is incorrect that the Appellant is not asking for the disclosure of increased detail.

A request for licence disclosure results in publication to the world at large. In the hands of a person with intent to cause harm, there is resulting threat of harm to national infrastructure and/or public safety by means of damage to national water supply infrastructure and/ or contamination of public water supplies.

AWL disclosed a list with 4-digit national grid reference of boreholes in its supply area (i.e. to 1 sqm geographical area). This aligns with DEFRA’s 2012 published guidance to Water Companies and other guidance. AWL also provided a map of their approximate locations as well as a reference in line with the Appellant’s amended Request. In doing so, AWL considers that it discharged its regulation 9(1) obligation to assist the Appellant, whilst having regard to the requirements of the Secretary of State to maintain secure and safe water supplies in its area.

When the Tribunal first convened on 24 June 2025 to determine this case on the papers, we identified matters requiring clarification before arriving at a decision. In particular, it was not wholly clear what information the Appellant considers is outstanding from his Request, and what information can be obtained if the Abstraction Licence number is released. Therefore, in Case Management Directions dated 1 July 2025 the Tribunal directed the Appellant and AWL to provide clarification. Those directions gave all the parties opportunity to provide a written submission in reply to another party’s response if they so wished.

The Appellant’s reply explained that the ‘Water Body ID’ (“WBID”) is the basic number which is used by the EA to identify stretches of water in England as names can be confusing. The Appellant reiterated that the terms ‘permit’ and ‘licence’ are used interchangeably by the EA and the water companies including AWL. There was a “typo” in his Request by using the word “permit” instead of “licence”. The licence number is the basic reference which the EA uses in its database and in everyday operations. It can be used to access details of the licence including the quantity of water allowed for abstraction and the location.

The Appellant does not seek the detailed location of the boreholes. He only requires the name of the abstraction, its purpose, the WBID and the quantity allowed for abstraction. The WBID covers an area averaging about 10 square kilometres which the Appellant considers is quite crude and is all that he requires. He acknowledged that “more detailed information could be obtained from the licence but that is not of interest to me”. The Appellant confirmed that he seeks the abstraction licence numbers. He seeks nothing else at this stage. The EA has supplied detailed information, but it is a direct print-out from its WIMS database. It is ambiguous and hence requires interpretation and the need to cross check with the individual water companies to confirm the correct WBID.

In 2019, AWL published an ‘Abstraction Incentive Mechanism’ report in table format with details of their boreholes including licence numbers. It is still available on the internet.

As part of the Case Management Directions of 1 July 2025, the Tribunal invited the Appellant to provide copies of the requests and responses if other water companies had agreed to supply the information upon the same request, as suggested. In response, the Appellant said that he did not consider it a material issue to his request. Nevertheless, he gave the names of eleven water companies with a very brief summary of the position each had taken to his request. He stated that: one gave a “full response with licence numbers”, three gave permit numbers and WBIDs, two gave licence numbers and WBIDs, two gave licence numbers only, one gave WBIDs only, one gave “partial compliance” but refused licence numbers subject to this appeal, and one refused the request.

When AWL queried the brevity of the responses, the Appellant replied that he felt that the court would not like to be bombarded with the detailed emails from each of the nine companies who provided the requested data. The Appellant said that he had copied each of the detailed company responses to AWL for checking and invited their confirmation that the list is accurate.

Following an unopposed application for an extension of time, the Tribunal varied its Directions to allow AWL up until 15 September 2025 to file its reply to the Appellant’s responses and to answer our questions posed in the Case Management Directions.

The additional information received pursuant to those Directions included an open witness statement of Ruth Luxford, Senior Regulatory Counsel at AWL. She explains that AWL contacted the third-party water companies listed by the Appellant to whom the same request was sent to obtain confirmation upon which basis they disclosed, or did not disclose, the information requested. The responses reveal that some water companies disclosed Abstraction Licence numbers and other information, and some water companies did not. Ms Luxford submits that the different approaches to responding suggest they applied a risk assessment process particular to the geological situation of their supply area. AWL is largely dependent on chalk aquifers, whereas other English regions are not. She states that this was a factor that AWL took into account when assessing whether or not to disclose the requested information.

The gist of the Closed Annex explains the importance of the Abstraction Licence number in the area of public water supply by AWL; describes third party responses to AWL; responds to the questions of the Tribunal on fact and law and to the additional evidence provided by the Appellant.

In reply, the Appellant submits that the responses obtained by AWL from the other water companies confirms his answers to the Tribunal. He says that South West Water owns Bournemouth Water, so they are the same company. Not all the water companies responded with the requested information but eight of them did. It was never the Appellant’s intention to “publish to the world”. His publication is via targeted emails only to parties who are concerned with the welfare of the chalk streams and Members of Parliament who have streams in their constituencies. If national security is threatened, then the Appellant questions why eight water companies provided the requested information.

Both the Appellant and AWL provided closing statements summarising their positions.