THE LYTH AND WITHERSLACK PROPOSED WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT BOARD

Consultation Report

January 2016

Prepared by:Veronica WallerNFU Farming Liaison Officer Project ManagerNFU North West Region, 1 Moss Lane View, Skelmersdale, Lancashire WN8 9TLTel: 01695 554900E mail: veronica.waller@nfu.org.ukWebsite: https://lythvalleywlmg.wordpress.com

FOREWORD

Since 2005, the Environment Agency’s maintenance and operational activities have been assessed using a risk based approach, focussing on areas of greatest flood risk to people and property. Where the benefit is mainly to land drainage, the Environment Agency has been reducing the extent of watercourse management and reviewing the continued operation of pumping stations in many rural areas of Cumbria and elsewhere.

In January 2011, the Environment Agency notified land occupiers in the Lyth and Witherslack area that it would cease to operate four land drainage pumping stations at Ulpha, Sampool, Johnscales and Pool Bridge from January 2013, and that funding for channel maintenance would also be reduced. The deadline for withdrawing from the pumping stations was extended until 31 December 2015 whilst the feasibility of setting up a new Internal Drainage Board was being investigated and has recently been further extended until 30th June 2016 whilst this work continues.

Previous consultations with farmers and landowners demonstrated support for investigating the costs of setting up a new Internal Drainage Board. An Internal Drainage Board is a local public authority with powers to undertake works and operate assets such as pumping stations to reduce flood risk and manage water levels within a drainage district. It is funded predominantly by drainage rates collected directly from agricultural land occupiers and a Special Levy paid by the Local Authority on behalf of the non-agricultural land/buildings within the district.

On behalf of the community, the National Farmers Union in partnership with the Environment Agency funded JBA Consulting to develop a Justification Statement setting out the detailed business case for a proposed new Internal Drainage Board which, if agreed, would be called “The Lyth and Witherslack Water Level Management Board”.

The Justification Statement was published on 1st July 2015 and a public consultation was held in July and August 2015 to determine the level of “community support” for the proposed Board.

This report summarises the results of this public consultation.

2

CONTENTS

1. The consultation process

2. Summary and key findings from the consultation

2.2 Summary

2.3 Key findings from the consultation

2.3.1 Responses from agricultural land occupiers and landowners2.3.2 Responses from Parish Councils2.3.3 Responses from individuals2.3.4 Responses from stakeholder organisations

3. Next steps and recommendations

Annexes

Map of the proposed Water Level Management Board area Parish Councils with land in the proposed drainage district Stakeholder organisations that responded to the consultation

3

1. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

The process of developing the Justification Statement and conducting the consultation followed the national guidance on establishing new Internal Drainage Boards prepared by the Association of Drainage Authorities and the Environment Agency.1

The National Farmers’ Union facilitated the consultation overseen by the Environment Agency. The Justification Statement was published for consultation on 1 st July 2015 with a closing date for responses of 28th August 2015.

As potential future payers of Drainage Rates, the agricultural land occupiers/landowners in the proposed drainage district were mailed with a summary of the Justification Statement, a map of the proposed drainage district, information about consultation meetings and details of where further information could be obtained, either from the NFU Regional Office or from the website: https://lythvalleywlmg.wordpress.com. They were also provided with a ballot paper to register their vote which could be returned at meetings or by post. Defra’s list of Single Farm Payment claimants in 2014 was used for the mailing as the most comprehensive database available of agricultural land occupiers in the proposed drainage district.

Details of the consultation were mailed to Parish Councils within the proposed drainage district, and to South Lakeland District Council who, if the Water Level Management Board is approved, would pay the Special Levy on behalf of non-agricultural householders and businesses. It was also sent to members of the Lyth and Witherslack Advisory Group consisting of representatives from the County Council, the Local Authority, farmers, landowners and environmental organisations.

Consultation meetings were held on the following dates:-

MEETINGDATES

VENUE CONSULTATION GROUP

Thursday 18th June 2015 Gilpin Bridge Inn, Levens Lyth and Witherslack Water Level Management Board Advisory Group

Wednesday 1st July 2015

Gilpin Bridge Inn, Levens Lyth and Witherslack Parish Council representatives

Monday 13th July 2015 Kendal Auction Mart Lyth and Witherslack farmers and landowners

Thursday 23rd July 2015 Kendal Auction Mart NFU Office

Drop in “clinic” for farmers and landowners

At the beginning of July, a press release was sent to the Westmorland Gazette with details of the consultation and publicising the website: https://lythvalleywlmg.wordpress.com. The website contained information about Internal Drainage Boards, details of the Justification Statement, consultation response forms and maps of the proposed Drainage District. 1 Establishing New Internal Drainage Boards – Guidance (Environment Agency and the Association of Drainage Authorities)

4

In total, responses were received as follows:-Type of respondent Number of responsesAgricultural land occupiers/landowners within the drainage district 86Parish Councils within the drainage district 5Parish Councils outside the drainage district 2Householders both from within and outside the drainage district 32Stakeholder organisations 12

The Justification Statement will be considered by South Lakeland District Council once the results of the public consultation have been assessed and after any further revisions to the proposals . If agreed, SLDC would pay the Special Levy on behalf of the non-agricultural land and buildings within the proposed drainage district.

2. SUMMARY OF THE CONSULTATION RESPONSES AND KEY FINDINGS

2.1 SUMMARY OF THE CONSULTATION RESPONSES

A high proportion of ballot papers were returned from agricultural land occupiers with responses received covering 88% of the agricultural land within the proposed drainage district.

Support for the proposed Water Level Management Board was received from 64 out of 86 agricultural land occupiers/landowners that voted, representing 78% of the agricultural land area that responded.

Although there was a high level of support for the proposals, there was some opposition to the proposed Board from agricultural land occupiers with land outside the pumped catchment, particularly from those with higher land around Witherslack or with land drained by gravity in the Meathop area.

There was a mixed response from the five parish councils within the Drainage District, with two councils voting in favour, one voting in favour but expressing some concerns, one that was unable to agree a view due to divided local opinion and one that voted against the proposals in their current format.

There were 32 individual householders that responded to the consultation, of which 28 were opposed to the proposed Water Level Management Board, the majority of whom were from outside the drainage district. The main concerns raised were in relation to the impact on South Lakeland District Council of the Special Levy, the lack of public consultation with South Lakeland District Council residents and the perceived negative impact on the environment of the proposed Water Level Management Board.

Detailed responses were received from twelve stakeholder organisations with three in favour of the proposed Water Level Management Board, two in favour of the

5

principle of a Water Level Management Board but with concerns about the proposals in the Justification Statement, five organisation, opposed to the establishment of a Water Level Management Board and one which requested further information on the proposals. The Environment Agency also commented in relation to the biodiversity audit. A range of concerns were raised by stakeholders with an environmental interest about the proposed operation of the Water Level Management Board and its aims and objectives.

2.2 KEY FINDINGS FROM THE CONSULTATION

2.2.1 Responses from Agricultural Land Occupiers and Land Owners

If the proposed Internal Drainage Board is established, then agricultural land occupiers would pay around 68% of the running costs of the Board through paying drainage rates estimated in the Justification Statement at £13.68/acre. Excluding wildlife reserve areas not used for agriculture, ballot papers were received from agricultural land occupiers/landowners covering 88% of the drainage district area.

The first question on the ballot paper asked whether the respondent was in favour, or against, the proposed Water Level Management Board. This was followed by a number of supplementary questions about the operation of the Water Level Management Board. The following table summarises the responses to the main question of whether the respondents were in favour or against the proposed IDB.

Responses

Number of ballot papers from

agricultural landoccupiers/owners

% of area that responded*

% of numbers that

respondedThose in favour(Of these, 3 voted yes only for the land they occupied in the pumped catchment) 64 78.8% 74.4%Those against 17 19.2% 19.8%Ballot papers returned but voted neither yes or no, invalid returns (voted but no contact details given) + respondents who didn’t believe they had land in the drainage district 5 0.57% 5.8%

Land on which the land occupier voted differently to the landowner 1.43%

TOTAL 86

(*based on the area on which Single Farm Payments were claimed according to the Rural Payments Agency Database 2014. This information was updated where we were informed of agricultural land that had changed hands since 2014.)

In most cases, the agricultural land occupier returned the ballot paper as both the occupier and the landlord. There were three landowners who voted in favour of the IDB where not already counted as land occupiers and three landowners that voted against the IDB. These

6

votes have been included in the totals above but where the land occupier voted differently from the land owner, the individual votes have been counted in the “Yes and No” votes, and the area has been recorded separately.

Three farmers responded in favour of the Internal Drainage Board but only for areas of their land that they considered were within the pumped catchment.

With some exceptions, there was a strong majority in favour of the proposed Water Level Management Board from the landowners and occupiers of agricultural land within the pumped catchment area. There was opposition to the proposed Water Level Management Board from some of the farmers with higher land in the Witherslack area and from an area near Meathop which drains by gravity into the Winster rather than being part of the pumped Lyth Valley catchment.

Although in favour of the proposed Water Level Management Board, three of the respondents made comments about the cost of the estimated drainage rates and their affordability particularly at a time of falling agricultural prices. Cost was also raised as an issue by three of the respondents who voted against the Board.

A summary of the responses to the other questions raised in the consultation response form is below:-

Question Number of Responses CommentsDo you agree with the proposed drainage district boundary?

Of the 64 land occupiers that voted in favour of the Board, 50 were in favour of the proposed boundary and 7 did not agree. The remaining 7 did not express a view.

The 18 land occupiers who voted against the Drainage Board were opposed to the proposed boundary.

Comments from those that did not agree with the drainage district boundary included those with higher land in the Witherslack area who argued that this land should not be included. Representations were also made by land occupiers in the Meathop area about land that does not drain into the pumped system and from a farmer whose land drained into the River Kent.

Do you agree with operating only Ulpha & Sampool pumping stations with Johnscales and Pool Bridge kept in reserve

Of those that voted in favour of the Board, 56 agreed with operating the two pumps with the Johnscales and Pool Bridge kept in reserve. Only 1 farmer who voted in favour of the Board, voted for all 4 pumping stations to be kept operational.

Typical comments in favour included:-“I fully support the proposal. It is still important that Johnscales and Pool Bridge pumps are kept in operational state and are available to be used if/when needed and are not forgotten about.”

“We need the pumps to increase the outflow of water.“

7

All those who voted against the Board and answered this question did not agree with the operation of the pumping stations.

Comments against the proposals included:- “the Pumps should be decommissioned.” “Since they turned off 2 pumps our dyke runs 200% lower than before.”

Do you agree with watercourses maintained to pre-2005 levels*

Of those that voted in favour of the Board, 57 agreed with watercourses being maintained to pre-2005 levels.

Of those that voted against the Board and answered this question, 2 were in favour and 7 were against watercourses being maintained to pre-2005 levels.

I have found some watercourses need works doing only every 2 years. A cost saving could be made.

I would like to see maintenance done by local contractors rather than employees of the EA.

I object to the return to pre-2005 drainage levels. This is because it is uneconomic and harmful to the environment and harmful to tourism.

Do you agree that 7 is the appropriate number of Board members with 5 seats elected by drainage rate payers and 2 seats for Local Authority appointees**

Of those that voted in favour of the Board, 58 farmers agreed. None disagreed.

Of those that voted against the Board and completed this question, one was in favour of the proposal and 8 against.

Comments included:

I feel 7 is OK but the Board should have the power to co-opt if necessary.

A comment from one who voted against this proposal was:- I notice 5 out of 7 board members are farmers. The Board is unbalanced. If there is a financial contribution from SLDC via the Special Levy, then the beneficiaries of that (the land occupiers) should not have a controlling majority on the Board.

Do you agree that drainage rate representatives should be elected from any part of the proposed drainage district?

Of those that voted in favour of the Board 54 farmers agreed and 2 disagreed.

Of those that voted against the Board, 2 agreed with this proposal and 7 disagreed.

People on the Board need to understand how the moss land and the drainage works.

We need local representatives with local knowledge

8

*this refers to lengths of watercourses maintained by the Environment Agency prior to 2005 and would involve the Board maintaining 28Km of channels in addition to the channels maintained by the Environment Agency in 2015. These channels are currently maintained by farmers themselves or their contractors.

** IDB Board representation is determined by the 1991 Land Drainage Act and the share of seats between Drainage rate payers and the Local Authority is in proportion with the share of the costs. The total number of Board members can be altered but the proportion of seats is dependent on the relative valuations of agricultural versus non-agricultural land and buildings.

In the other comments section, two agricultural land occupiers who voted in favour of the Board being established, expressed concern about the cost with comments:- “The rate is rather high. It is going to be a considerable impact on our resources,” and “Although we agree with the proposal to establish a new Internal Drainage Board, we are concerned at the higher than we hoped for cost of the drainage rate. We would hope that after the first year of cleaning the dykes, the cost would be lower.”

There were also comments about the need for an Internal Drainage Board to be established which included:-

“It is absolutely essential the IDB goes ahead”… “I feel it is essential to preserve the agricultural production of this valley”…..

“We cannot just do nothing. As far as I'm aware we have not much choice.”

“To risk the current condition of the land that is the obvious corner stone of a farm business based on speculation would be negligent of those parties that support turning off the pumps.”

From those who voted against the Board, comments included:-

I think the farming community, the conservation organisations and local interested parties should work harder to find a solution that works for all parties….

I object to the IDB for the following reasons:- Residents of South Lakeland would be forced to pay for the Scheme even though they will receive no benefit. South Lakeland residents are not being consulted on the proposal. Landowners with conservation aims are horrified at the idea of having to pay to damage wildlife.”

2.2.3 Responses from Parish Councils

The five parish councils with land within the drainage district responded with the following comments to the first question on the form:- “Do you agree with the establishment of the proposed Internal Drainage Board for the Lyth and Witherslack area?”

Parish Council Summary of ResponseCrosthwaite and Lyth

In view of the significant number of representations the Parish Council received regarding the proposed Internal Drainage Board, the strength of

9

feeling expressed both for it and against it and in the interests of continuing good community relations the Parish Council decided that they were unable to vote and felt that there were many questions which still need answering on this emotive subject.

The Parish Council has advised residents to contact the SLDC portfolio holder with cabinet responsibility for the environment with comments in support of or against the proposal. The Parish Council advised that residents read the Water Level Management Board Justification statement on the village website or on www.lythvalleywlmg.wordpress.com regarding the proposed IDB to become fully informed.

Underbarrow and Bradleyfield

Although disquiet was voiced by some members of the public present at the Parish Council meeting when the issue was discussed, the majority of Councillors are in favour of the proposals.

Helsington Helsington Parish Council does not oppose the establishment of an Internal Drainage Board in principle; however, the Parish Council does not agree with the establishment of the IDB as presently proposed.

LevensAgreed with the establishment of the proposed IDB for Lyth and Witherslack.

Meathop and Witherslack

Agreed with the establishment of the proposed IDB for Lyth and Witherslack.

Two Parish Councils from outside the drainage district, Arnside and Beetham, also submitted consultation response forms expressing opposition to the proposed IDB and concern that only parishes within the drainage district had been consulted although the Special Levy would have an impact on South Lakeland District Council and therefore spending across the Local Authority area. The Cumbria Association of Local Councils also raised concern that parishes throughout SLDC had not been consulted.

Helsington Parish Council submitted detailed comments in its consultation response. It agreed with the overall aims and objectives for the proposed Board but subject to their comments to the other questions. The Council did not object to the proposed boundary but this would be subject to further consultation regarding the effect of the Special Levy. They agreed that only the Ulpha and Sampool pumping station should be operated by the Board and did not agree that watercourses be maintained to pre-2005 levels, in particular, there must be no detriment to the National Trust wetland site at Park End Moss. The Council did not agree that 7 is the appropriate number of Board members and commented that it was undemocratic that the Board would be dominated by members elected by land occupiers. The budget for implementing the biodiversity action plan was considered inadequate. In other comments, the Parish Council expressed concern at the ineffectiveness of consultation with the public, felt that a much

10

higher level of agreement with other stakeholders must be achieved and more time should be allowed for consultation with more meetings with the public.

2.2.4 Responses from Individual Householders

In total, thirty two responses were received from individual householders the majority of whom were just outside the drainage district from nearby villages, particularly Brigsteer and Crosthwaite. There were seven respondents from further afield in South Lakeland including Ulverston and Broughton in Furness and one respondent from Lincolnshire.

Question Summary of responses from individual householdersDo you agree with the establishment of the proposed Lyth and Witherslack Water Level Management Board?

Twenty eight out of the thirty two responses were in opposition to the proposed Water Level Management Board, with four in favour.

Concerns that were raised by those opposed to the proposed Water Level Management Board included:-

Lack of consultation with non-agricultural householders and businesses particularly those within the wider South Lakeland District Council area who would be contributing indirectly to the costs of the Board through the Special Levy. Comments included: “if an IDB is formed, the cost on the tax player will inevitably rise over time. When public spending is tight, as at present, there will be many other essential services which would benefit from the extra money.”

Residents outside the drainage district would be contributing to the Board costs but would not benefit from the Board’s activities.

Proposals consulted on in 2011 being rejected by South Lakeland residents because of concerns over the costs and environment. Comments included: “We object to the establishing of an IDB. This proposal was subject to public consultation in 2011 and was decisively rejected.”

From those in favour of the proposed Board, comments included:-“it is essential that land in the Lyth Valley should be kept in good productive shape against future demands.”

Do you agree with the aims and objectives of the proposed Water Level Management

Of those that responded to this question, comments from those opposed to the Board included that maintaining the status quo would not deliver economic growth and that continued drainage at current levels is incompatible with nature conservation.

11

Board?Do you agree with the proposed Drainage District boundary?

Comments from those opposed to the Board included that the drainage district includes large areas of wetland habitat which are being actively restored by raising water levels (Foulshaw Moss, Meathop Moss, Nichols Moss, Brigsteer Moss and Park End Moss). The objectives of the proposed IDB are directly opposed to the objectives for these sites and they should be excluded from the drainage district boundary.

Do you agree with operating only Ulpha & Sampool Pumping Stations and maintaining watercourses to pre-2005 levels?

There were concerns raised that the option of pre 2005 drainage levels would make it more difficult for some farmers/landowners to engage in higher level stewardship schemes.

Comments included:

“All of the pumps should be decommissioned as they are uneconomic.”

“Trying to return water levels to pre-2005 water levels is very likely to fail and will involve exponential increase in costs as sea levels rise and weather patterns change. The main aim should be for sustainable land use and for the valley to operate as an ecologically coherent network of sites - not maintaining intensive farming on marginal land.”

“There is a real opportunity here to return to more sustainable farming methods on what is marginal agricultural land and to create new areas of seasonally flooded wet grassland and other wetland habitats to form links with the areas of existing semi-natural habitat. Furthermore returning areas like the Lyth Valley to a more natural system has the potential to in turn help with adaptation to climate change and sea level rise.”

There were also questions raised about the feasibility of restoring the natural drainage systems if the pumps are turned off.

From those in support of the proposed Board, comments included:-“visual aspect of the Lyth Valley is important and we would prefer a well drained and productive environment to the “wetted up” areas envisaged in some current plans.”

Do you agree with the proposed Board Representation?

From those opposed to the Board, there were concerns over Board representation with comments about 5 of the 7 Board members being elected by land occupiers with two from South Lakeland District Council.

Comments included that: “Given the large area of designated sites (SSSI/SAC) and other wetlands within the proposed IDB boundary (over 500ha, at least 16% of the total area) one seat should be reserved for a representative from a nature conservation body eg Natural England to ensure that biodiversity is properly considered in all actions.”… Any

12

future board should consist of a balance of farming, environmental and other interests.

Comments from those in favour of the Board included that the co-opted members should be used to feed in engineering, business and accounting skills.

Comments on the Biodiversity Audit & Environmental Action Plan

Concerns were raised over the budget for the biodiversity action plan in the Justification Statement and whether this would be sufficient to meet the obligations under the Water Framework Directive.Comments included: “The amount of money budgeted for this is trivial. The Justification Statement lists the IDB’s obligations, but does not say how it will met those obligations.”

Other Comments Questions were raised about the cost/benefit of the Board and other comments from those opposed to the Board included:-

Other options as well as the establishment of an Internal Drainage Board should have been presented particularly the “wetter farming” option in the 2010 Environment Agency Maintenance Strategic Study.

“Proposals are totally counterproductive. The Lyth Valley could and should be a place of wildlife interest with substantial wetlands. Farming never has been profitable there.”

“A similar proposal was rejected by residents in 2011 due to costs and threat to wildlife. There has not been effective consultation on the current proposal with residents of South Lakeland who would be contributing to the Special Levy.”

Comments from those in favour of the proposals included:-

“I am a strong supporter of Internal Drainage Boards. They meet the ethos of localism in its broader sense with local people meeting local needs with local money.”

2.2.5 Responses from Stakeholder Organisations

Responses were received from Natural England, the RSPB, the National Trust, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Lake District, the Lake District National Park Authority, South Cumbria Rivers Trust, Cumbria Local Nature Partnership, the National Grid, the Moss Roads Committee and the Country Land and Business Association. Comments on the biodiversity audit and environmental action plan were also received from the Environment Agency.

The Country Land and Business Association, the Moss Roads Committee and the National Grid voted in favour of the proposed Water Level Management Board. Natural England and the Lake District National Park Authority expressed support in principle for

13

a Water Level Management Board but with a number of concerns about the proposals within the Justification Statement. The other stakeholders either voted against the proposed Water Level Management Board or felt unable to support the proposals in their current format or without further information.

A summary of the responses of stakeholders to the questions within the consultation response form is below. Most stakeholders submitted very detailed responses to each question and this is just a brief summary picking out representative comments.

Question Summary of the range of Responses from StakeholdersDo you agree with the establishment of the proposed Lyth and Witherslack Water Level Management Board?

The establishment of an IDB is the only viable solution. Given that the Environment Agency will switch off the pumps and farmland will flood as will local infrastructure, there must be a solution to encompass the whole local community. An IDB with statutory powers is the way to do this.

The establishment of a statutory body for water level management offers the opportunity for a well-coordinated, adequately resourced and multi-objective approach to managing water in the area given the intention of the EA to reduce and withdraw its water management operations in the area.

Establishment of a drainage board will by its membership bring together land and water management in the area for the first time since the 1980’s. Environmentally this has the potential to be a very positive move. However, that will require a responsibility for co-ordinated wider-landscape management that has never been a responsibility of the farming community, as these duties were not established when the proposed drainage boards were disbanded. The legislation and Government’s aspiration for ecosystem services delivery and biodiversity requirements has changed significantly since an IDB Board operated in this area and delivery of these requirements will be a significant challenge.

The proposed IDB…will prevent the establishment of a farming system that is better able to support the recovery of wildlife populations within the valley and sustain soils and water. The current approach fails to take account of this fact and simply seeks to stave off the point at which farming becomes uneconomic.

This consultation deals with just one option and does not consider alternative approaches to land management which could deliver more sustainable outcomes for the public, nature and the economy.

We do not feel able to support the proposals as they currently stand. There will need to be significant changes to the proposed IDB structure,

14

aims, focus, pumping levels and budget for us to give support.Do you agree with the aims and objectives of the proposed Water Level Management Board?

Environmental delivery appears to be an ‘add on’ and something that will be ‘given consideration’, rather than fully incorporated into the delivery model.

The principle of the aim sounds good but there is no clear demonstration of the benefits that would be gained for anything other than agriculture. The IDB is asking the community to pay therefore the wider benefits to the community should be more clearly quantified. The outcomes and benefits for wider ecosystem services should be clearly outlined.

Aims and objectives are skewed towards maintaining intensive farming and drainage and in themselves are incompatible. In terms of the overall aim of the IDB, how will competing interests be managed? Safeguarding the economic output of agricultural businesses is unlikely to provide conditions to sympathetically maintain wildlife habitats and land use. Which of the objectives takes precedence? IDBs have legal obligations to the environment and conservation - these duties are not sufficiently reflected in the aims and objectives.

The Justification Statement does not properly consider and evaluate the considerable benefits that could be achieved if the IDB fully embraced wider aims and objectives.

Do you agree with the proposed Drainage District boundary?

The current proposals include within the IDB boundary two areas which need clear justification and may be precedent setting so need careful consideration, namely (1) the raised bogs and (2) the Witherslack extension. Neither of these areas appears to satisfy the expressed criteria that areas within the boundary "will derive benefit, or avoid danger, as a result of drainage operations".

Disagree with the inclusion of areas that are shown not to be at risk from the Flood Zone 2 map including the communities in and around Witherslack. Boundary also does not take account of landowners that want higher water level management eg for agri-environment schemes.

Agricultural land around Witherslack may see some benefit due to the continued drainage from Ulpha pumping station. However the majority of the land around Witherslack is outside Flood Zone 2 (1 in 100 year chance of flooding) and therefore outside the drainage benefit area.

Do you agree with operating only Ulpha & Sampool Pumping Stations and maintaining watercourses to

Main concern is the on-going maintenance of the drains alongside the roads managed by the Moss Road Committee.

More cost effective water level management technology may now exist eg that might be considered in relation to the Ulpha pump - eg self-regulating tide gates allowing for increased tidal flushing, or modifications to the channel structure.

15

pre-2005 levels?How does pre-2005 levels of watercourse maintenance fit with the duties to enhance designated environmental sites eg SSSIs? Concerned that this will mean some of the currently wetter areas will revert back to being drier and some ditches will go back to higher levels of maintenance leading to loss in landscape and biodiversity. No other options are presented in terms of either different drainage levels or without an IDB.

Do you agree with the proposed Board Representation?

Co-opted members should be used to provide engineering and accounting expertise.

Board membership should be increased and nominations encouraged from a full range of stakeholders to ensure that all aspects of conservation, recreation and economic interests are taken into account.

While the model for representation established under the 1991 act seems appropriate for a body focused on local management issues, it does not necessarily reflect the need for the IDB to fulfil the suite of more recently imposed statutory duties. This is certainly of relevance with regard to biodiversity legislation, but may be more wide ranging, especially given this area’s location within the Lake District National Park.

The membership of the proposed Board does not match its statutory duties towards the environment and heritage. Co-opting members from the environmental sector is not good enough. There needs to be a clear commitment to have a Board member with environmental knowledge and also that one of the landowner representatives should be one of the environmental charity landowners.

Comments on the Biodiversity Audit & Environmental Action Plan

The budget of £1000 for developing the Biodiversity Audit and Action Plan needs to be significantly increased and the BAP development should be overseen by a more representative Board.

The description of this document as an action plan over represents its scope; it acts as an audit and framework document but does not at present identify actions to be taken.

The biodiversity audit and the possibility of environmental improvements within the action plan seem incompatible with the drainage proposals seeking to return land drainage to pre-2005 levels.

The environmental action plan is not detailed or committed enough to fulfil the environmental and heritage duties of the IDB. The only environmental enhancement work likely to happen is through Higher Level Stewardship payments. The budget of £1,000 is almost meaningless given the range of actions in the Biodiversity Action Plan.

Other Comments The local cost in lost agriculture and related businesses will be severe if

16

an IDB is not established. Any solution that does not have statutory power to raise rates (such as some kind of cooperative) will fail because there will always be individuals that refuse to pay their way. IDBs (now WLMBs) have a proven track record of success nationwide and the costs involved are accepted by all the parties – the local farming communities, the rate payers and the local authorities.

We would like to see alternatives to an IDB explored in depth and linked to a long term vision for the valley formed through proper partnership working and consultation.

Concerned that costs are based on a set of assumptions some of which are not accurate - eg it assumes that the EA will continue to maintain the main rivers to the current extent which is unlilkely to be the case.

Public funding from SLDC will be supporting the IDB's work draining the valley but public money through Natural England will also be going into the area for farmers to re-wet the land. Needs to be wider public debate about whether council tax payers in the SLDC area consider this is a priority compared to other priorities.

3. NEXT STEPS

Given the responses to the consultation, particular consideration needs to be given to the following issues:-

The inclusion of the higher land within the Witherslack area needs to be reviewed. If the higher land is included then consideration needs to be given to a differentiated drainage rate for land above the “Medway Line” which would reduce the cost to agricultural land occupiers with higher land and reduce the Special Levy payable by SLDC for the non-agricultural land and buildings in this area. This revision would either reduce the income received by the proposed Water Level Management Board or potentially increase Drainage Rates in the remainder of the drainage district requiring further consultation with agricultural land occupiers.

Consideration also needs to be given to the request to exclude the areas of raised bog within the Wildlife Reserves at Meathop and Foulshaw Moss although this area has not been included in the calculation of agricultural drainage rates.

The responses of stakeholders need to be considered with the proposals revised to take account of their comments where possible within the constraints of the 1991 Land Drainage Act. In particular, further discussion is required on the aims and objectives of the Water Level Management Board and how environmental organisations might be represented on the Board within the constraints of the Act. The budget for the biodiversity audit and environmental action plan needs to be reviewed particularly in light of Natural England’s comments on the Water Level

17

Management Board’s statutory responsibilities. The revised proposals will be discussed with the Lyth and Witherslack Advisory Group and it is likely that there will be a further consultation in 2016.

The information used as part of the consultation to estimate Special Levies and Drainage Rates is based upon current land values for domestic and non-domestic property, and agricultural land. New information has since come to light pertaining to the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the availability of the 1990 valuation lists (for domestic & non domestic property), and rental values applicable in 1988 (for agricultural land), which should be used when a new IDB calculates special levies and land drainage rates. The Environment Agency is seeking to access this valuations information as required by the legislation. Environment Agency staff will then assess whether it will affect the estimates of drainage rates as set out in the consultation.

We will re-consult on the revised proposals when the work on the ratings information has been completed and changes incorporated following the review of the consultation responses. As potential payers of the Special Levy, South Lakeland District Council needs to consider its view on the proposed Water Level Management Board but we recommend that SLDC delay their decision until a revised proposal has been prepared.

Discussions are also continuing with Defra about the financial situation facing Local Authorities with new Water Level Management Boards.

The Environment Agency is keen to ensure that a local solution is in place in the Lyth Valley and Waver Wampool before they decommission the land drainage pumps and reduce channel maintenance activities as set out in the in the consultation documentation for the proposed new IDBs. The Environment Agency originally indicated that decommissioning would take effect from 31st December 2015, however the EA is proposing a temporary extension to continue the current maintenance in both these areas for a further 6 months whilst further consultation takes place and discussions continue with the Local Authorities.

18