Any decision regarding the proposed Internal Drainage Board for the Lyth Valley should be postponed.

There has been no consultation with local communities, apart from one meeting with representatives from parish councils. Local residents should be given the chance to understand the issues and express their views on matters which will significantly affect their lives for the foreseeable future.

There is a significant number of issues on which more information is needed. For example,The Halcrow Report commissioned by the Environment Agency in 2010 is the only independently produced technical assessment of future drainage options in the Lyth Valley. It recommended ceasing pumping and wetter farming as the preferred option. It is difficult to understand how the current proposals reached such a different conclusion.

Will the preferred option of pre 2005 drainage levels make it more difficult for some farmers/landowners to engage in higher level stewardship schemes (which would benefit landscape and biodiversity)?

The proposals and the publicity around them imply they will prevent flooding of residents’ property. The only residential properties at risk are in Levens and these will be protected by the pump at Levens which will continue to be operated by the EA.

On what basis have the number of jobs and the contribution to the economy of agriculture been calculated?

The cost of maintaining the drainage system seems low and does not appear to include the full cost of regular clearing of the ditches. The cost of electricity for the pumps is only half of the 2005-2010 average though the intention is more intensive drainageand the price of electricity is higher and rising. A £1,000 budget for a biodiversity plan seems totally inadequate and there is no provision for representation of conservation interests on the Board.

Is water quality in the catchment satisfactory and will the proposals enable the EA to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive?

Do farms in the valley have adequate slurry storage capacity to enable them to comply with slurry spreading regulations?

The Drainage Board legislation is out of date with the thrust of more modern regulations such as The Habitats Directive, Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive. No other drainage boards have been set up for over 30 years.

The proposals will result in unsustainable farming and land use. It will use large quantities of electricity, require regular cleaning of ditches and removal of soil, generally damage water quality and biodiversity and require continuing public subsidy to produce milk, which cannot currently be sold at an economic price.

Before proceeding down a route which ticks the wrong boxes surely We should explore alternatives such as which tick better boxes, less electricity, better water quality and biodiversity, carbon sequestration from a rougher wetter landscape, more contribution to the local economy via tourism and, most important, proper rewards for farmers and landowners pursuing more traditional agriculture.

The Lyth Valley is an area of extraordinary beauty and of huge importance to many interest groups. It deserves something special. Let’s make sure adequate time and debate is allowed to ensure sustainable long-term decisions are made.

The Environment Agency and Natural England are the custodians of our countryside and biodiversity and should set up a process to ensure the best long-term solutions are found. The EA is under pressure to escape the cost of maintaining the pumps but this should not result in a hurried process.

And if the custodians of our countryside and biodiversity, together with the other conservation interests involved, are not able to come up with better long- term proposals and the conclusion is that an IDB is the best option, let’s make sure proper representation and protection is provided for the community, wildlife and conservation interests.

Ian Gregg

Brigsteer