WAVER WAMPOOL 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://waverwampoolwlmg.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 Waver and Wampool catchments that it would cease to operate four land drainage pumping stations at Wolsty, Rumbling Bridge, Lessonhall and Gamelsby from January 2013, and that funding for channel maintenance would also be reduced. The deadline for withdrawing from the pumping stations and their associated channels was extended until 31 December 2015 whilst the feasibility of setting up a new Internal Drainage Board is investigated. This deadline 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 Waver Wampool 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 (see separate map file if viewing this report electronically)

Parish Councils with land in the proposed drainage district

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 at the beginning of July with a summary of the Justification Statement, a map of the proposed IDB area, information about consultation meetings and details of where further information could be obtained, either from the NFU Regional Office or from the website: https://waverwampoolwlmg.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 IDB area, to key officers within Allerdale Borough Council and sent by e mail to members of the Waver Wampool 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

TIME VENUE CONSULTATION GROUP

Friday 19th June

10am Wigton Market Hall Waver Wampool Advisory Group

Thursday 2nd July 2015

7.30pm Newton Arlosh Parish Hall

Waver Wampool Parish Council representatives

Wednesday 15th July 2015

7.30pm The Wheyrigg Hotel, near Abbeytown CA7 0DH

Waver Wampool farmers and landowners

Tuesday 21st July 2015

7.30pm The White Heather, near Kirkbride CA7 5HW

Waver Wampool farmers and landowners

Thursday 23rd July 2015

7.00pm Silloth Community Hall NW and NE Allerdale Neighbourhood Forums

Tuesday 28th July 2015

11am – 2pm

Wigton Auction Mart Board Room

Drop in “clinic” for farmers and landowners

Thursday 20th August 2015

11am – 2pm

Wigton Auction Mart Board Room

Drop in “clinic” for farmers and landowners

1 Establishing New Internal Drainage Boards – Guidance (Environment Agency and the Association of Drainage Authorities)

4

At the beginning of July, a press release was sent to the Cumberland News promoting the IDB Consultation and publicising the website: https://waverwampoolwlmg.wordpress.com. The website contained information about Internal Drainage Boards, copies of the Justification Statement, consultation response forms and maps of the proposed Drainage District.

A further press release was issued on 31st July 2015 as a reminder that there was just one month left to go before the consultation deadline. Two “reminder” postcards were sent out at the end of July and in mid-August to the database of land occupiers and landowners in the proposed drainage district to try and encourage responses A reminder e mail was sent to the Advisory Group members at the end of July and to Parish Council Clerks in mid- August.

In total, responses were received as follows:-

Type of respondent Number of responsesAgricultural land occupiers and landowners within the drainage district

184

Agricultural land occupiers and landowners outside the drainage district

8

Parish Councils within the drainage district 12Householders within the drainage district 1Individuals from outside the drainage district 1Stakeholder organisations/Representatives on the Advisory Group 5

The Justification Statement will be considered by Allerdale Borough Council once the results of the public consultation have been reviewed and any adjustments made to the proposals. If agreed, Allerdale Borough Council 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

There was a mixed response to the proposed Water Level Management Board from the agricultural land occupiers/landowners that voted. Ballot papers were returned covering just over 65% of the agricultural land within the proposed drainage district. Of those that returned ballot papers, around 50% of the numbers that voted, covering just over 55% of the area that voted were in favour of the proposed Board.

There was significant opposition to the proposals from certain areas particularly on the Eastern and North Eastern side of the proposed drainage district. Conversely, ballot papers were received from farmers outside the proposed drainage district from the Black Dub watercourse requesting that their area be included.

5

In general, the occupiers of agricultural land within the pumped catchment areas or those whose watercourses were further inland and therefore reliant on a number of other agricultural land occupiers to maintain their drains were more likely to vote in favour of the proposed Board. Those farmers closer to the sea, or whose land was free draining because of soil type, situation or height above sea level, were more likely to be opposed to the proposals.

Of the 12 Parish Councils that have responded to the consultation, 10 were in favour

of the proposed Water Level Management Board, one was in favour in principle but commented that the boundary should exclude the area within Bowness Parish north of the Wampool and one Parish Council was unable to vote either in favour or against due to divided local opinion.

Two responses were received from individual householders both in favour of the proposals.

Responses were received from five stakeholder organisations with concerns raised by those 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 61.5% of the running costs of the Board through paying drainage rates which have been estimated at £4.75/acre. Excluding the wildlife reserve areas and marshland on which drainage rates would not be levied, ballot papers were received representing 65.3% of the agricultural land in the drainage district.

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 IDB. The following table summarises the responses to the main question of whether the respondents were in favour or against the proposed IDB.

Responses Ballot papers returned

% of those that responded by number

% of those that responded by area

Number of ballot papers received from agricultural land occupiers & landowners within the drainage district

184 50.4% Ballot papers were received

representing 65.3% of the agricultural

land in the drainage district

Number of ballot papers in favour of the proposed IDB

102 55.4% 57.9%

6

Number of ballot papers against

82 44.6% 42.1%

Ballot papers not returned 178 49.6% 34.7% of the area excluding marsh

and Nature Reserves

TOTAL IN DRAINAGE DISTRICT 362

(*this is 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. The area includes only the land on which agricultural drainage rates will be levied therefore excluding tidal marsh, non-agricultural land and Wildlife Reserves eg Wedholme Flow.)

In most cases, the agricultural land occupier returned the ballot paper and there were no instances of agricultural land owners voting differently from agricultural land occupiers. Where only the land owner returned the ballot paper (which included 5 responses in favour of the proposed IDB and 4 responses against the proposed IDB), these ballot paper numbers and areas have been included in the table above.

In general, the occupiers of agricultural land within the pumped catchment areas or those whose watercourses were further inland and therefore reliant on a number of other agricultural land occupiers to maintain their drains were more likely to vote in favour of the proposed Board. Those farmers closer to the sea, or whose land was free draining because of soil type, situation or height above sea level, were more likely to have voted against the Internal Drainage Board. Farmers from the coastal fringe with land draining into the marsh were more likely to have voted against the establishment of a Water Level Management Board. Arguments included that they were not reliant on other riparian landowners downstream to maintain their watercourses and that watercourse maintenance further upstream increased their flood risk particularly at times of high tide.

In addition to the ballot papers received from agricultural land occupiers within the drainage district, 8 ballot papers were received from farmers to the South of Allonby requesting that the Black Dub and Crossbeck catchment area be considered for inclusion within the proposed Drainage District. These responses were coordinated by one farmer who commented in a covering letter that about half the farmers on this watercourse were in favour of being included, but some were undecided and some were against.

The following table summarises responses to the other questions on the ballot paper:-

Question ResponseDo you agree with the proposed Drainage District Boundary?

Two petitions were received from agricultural land occupiers in the Eastern part of the drainage district requesting that their areas be excluded from the boundary because the land was free draining and would not receive any drainage benefit from the proposed Board: The first petition was from a group of 18 farmers in the Crofton/Thursby area; and the second from a group of 6 farmers based in an area to the North of Thursby.

7

Discussions were held at consultation clinics with farmers from Bowness on Solway parish with land north of the River Wampool who felt that the area within Bowness-on-Solway Parish should be excluded from the boundary.

There were a number of individuals who, although in favour of the proposed Board, wanted the boundary reviewed so that only some of their fields were included within the drainage district.

A number of respondees both those in favour and against the proposals commented that the drainage district should encompass the entire hydrological catchment as the Waver Wampool drainage district deals with water from this much wider area. Comments included: “It is a start, but I would like to see the higher ground “fetched” into it.” And “More farmland should be included in it. A lot of other people’s water ends up in our ditches.”

Do you agree with the proposed options for operating the IDB

Of the 102 ballot papers in favour of the proposed Board, 11 respondents voted against the proposal to levy the same drainage rate on farmers in the pumped catchment as in the gravity catchment. A typical comment was: “I think it unfair that occupiers of land benefitting from pumping stations pay the same as others. The cost of running pumping stations must take a large part of the total budget. Much of my holding would benefit from a pumped system but I don’t have that luxury.”

Comments about the pumping stations included that pumping stations should be as lean, green and efficient as possible with new deeper gravity outfalls, the use of solar and wind power and cheaper night time electricity.

In relation to Wolsty pumping station, one farmer commented: “pumping station and deep channel behind it at Wolsty essential as this was not only there for land drainage but also to protect Blitterlees and surrounding area of Silloth from flooding.”

In relation to pre-2005 levels of watercourse maintenance comments included:

“I would like to see the main River Waver maintained by the IDB as it is in an appalling state.”

“Can we be sure the Environment Agency will continue to maintain the River Wampool? If not it should be included in the Scheme”

“I would have to know that ditches that were dropped by the

8

River Authority were taken up again, not for the first year only. I can’t contribute to new schemes and have the costs I have now for ditch clearance.”

One farmer raised the issue of repairs to channel structures and the budget available for future works. He commented:- “The budget is too low on repairs of £300,000 over 10 years. There will be no money to do repairs on minor watercourses.”

Another farmer raised concern that there was no guarantee that the Environment Agency would maintain their waterways.

Do you agree with the proposals for Board representation?

Of the 102 that voted in favour of the proposed Board, only 1 voted against the proposal to have 11 Board members in total, 6 voted against the proposed electoral boundaries and 11 voted against having co-opted members on the Board.

Comments included:-“it is very important to have farmers as board members because of our expertise of what’s involved.”

“I agree with co-opting people with engineering expertise but environmental expertise No. They have had too much say in the past and what a mess they have made of things.”

“Absolutely essential that the wildlife conservation issues are properly addressed. Wildlife needs wetlands”

“I would prefer a bigger land occupier’s representation. Definitely no vote to co-opted members especially environmentalists.”

Any other comments

“Apart from being the best alternative to continue on from the Environment Agency’s scaling back, it’s the only real alternative to secure watercourse management efficiently for generations to come.

“It is long overdue and needs to be set up as quickly as possible.”

“We have done without all these years. Two years before its set up, two years before we may get a ditch cleaned out at three times the price that I need to pay. Being 64 years of age, I would rather spend the money on giving everyone who turns up at my funeral a good tea.”

“Our ditches are in far better condition now than they were when the River Board looked after them plus there is no money in farming to pay for this.”

9

“IDB would be inefficient, costly and we would not get rid of it.”

2.2.2 Responses from Parish Councils

Some of the Parish Councils were not able to discuss the proposals during the consultation period due to meetings not being held in July and August. Responses that have been received so far are below:-

Parish Council Response

Bowness - on - Solway

The Parish Council believes that the proposed Drainage Board is a good idea in principle but believes that the cost should be shared by the whole district of Allerdale. The Council is concerned about the way the boundaries have been drawn up to include Bowness Parish which is to the North of the tidal Wampool estuary.

Holme-East-WaverThe Parish Council is generally in favour of the setting up of the Internal Drainage Board.

Kirkbride

The Parish Council believes that the management of waterways needs to continue and is generally in favour of the setting up of an Internal Drainage Board.

Kirkbampton In favour of the proposed IDB.

AiktonNeither yes or no due to people being affected in different ways in the Parish.

Thursby In favour of the proposed IDB.

Bromfield In favour of the proposed IDB.

Holme Low

In favour of the proposed IDB. It is essential that the proposed IDB is set up for the Waver Wampool Drainage area, as the land needs to be drained to protect valuable agricultural land & properties from potential flood risk.

AllhallowsIn favour of the proposed IDB, but as only 3% of the land in question is within the parish, the Council anticipates minimal involvement.

Waverton

In favour of the proposed Internal Drainage Board. Concerned about funding from Allerdale Borough Council because non farming parishioners will view their contribution as a subsidy to farmers.

Westward

In favour of the proposed IDB. The Parish Council realises the importance of land drainage but is horrified at the expected costs and would like to explore other options, ie farmers be allowed to work on their own property, within your jurisdiction.

Allonby

In favour of the IDB. Feels that the boundary should be moved to cover the whole parish of Allonby. Allonby is at the end of a lot of these rivers and becks and we feel these waterways should be maintained on a regular basis as all the water would gather in the Allonby area if not maintained.

10

In summary, of the 12 Parish Councils that have responded to the consultation, 10 were in favour of the proposed Water Level Management Board, one was in favour in principle but commented that the boundary should exclude the area within Bowness Parish north of the Wampool and one Parish Council was unable to vote either in favour or against due to divided local opinion.

2.2.3 Responses from Individuals

In total, two responses were received from individuals, one of which was from outside the drainage district and one of which was from inside the district. Both were in favour of the proposed Internal Drainage Board with detailed comments submitted by an individual with experience of working for an Internal Drainage Board elsewhere.

2.2.4 Responses from Stakeholder Organisations

Responses were received from Natural England, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Lake District and the Country Land and Business Association with a response also received from an individual in his role as a District and County Councillor.

The Country Land and Business Association and the Councillor both voted in favour of the proposed Drainage Board, with Natural England voting in favour in principle subject to a number of concerns being addressed. The two Non-Governmental Organisations voted against the proposals.

A summary of the responses of stakeholders to the questions within the consultation response form is below. Most stakeholders submitted 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 Waver Wampool 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. Leaving the management of water levels wholly to the local farming community would be inappropriate given the support to the wider local economy and given the benefits to local infrastructure.

Establishment of a Water Level Management Board will, by its membership, bring together land and water management in the area for the first time since the 1980’s. Environmentally this is a potentially very positive move. However, with that will be 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 existing drainage boards were disbanded. This will be a significant challenge and it will be important that the IDB, through its resources and its skills, is able to deliver this duty. This includes

11

responsibilities for ensuring the maintenance/restoration of a number of European (Natura 2000) protected sites that fall within its boundary, or are affected by its management. … We have concerns about the delivery of these duties within the current model. The IDB proposals appear to be aimed at maintaining the status quo for the farming community, with little aspiration to incorporate the biodiversity potential that wider landscape management offers, or for the improved delivery of ecosystem services. The prospective IDB also needs to be realistic about its business model, particularly with regard to its biodiversity obligations, we consider that these have been inadequately costed within the budget. The impact that the long term decrease in EA funding for agricultural drainage maintenance will likely have for the Waver Wampool has also not been factored into future costs. Over time this is likely to result in significant increases in the area being brought under IDB management with associated costs that would need to be passed on to its members unless the business model was modified from the current proposal.

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, aims, focus, pumping levels and the budget for us to give support. We feel that an opportunity that will benefit farmers, the environment and the local economy has been missed due to the way the proposals have been drawn up. We have concerns that Allerdale Council may approve something with no consultation with their rate payers and with little public benefit. We have not seen a business case for the IDB.

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. Given its range of environmental designations including AONB status, its fit to European and domestic policy and its recognition of potential through programmes such as Wetland Vision the Waver Wampool IDB area as a landscape unit has the potential to act as a flagship for how wildlife and farming can be delivered together for the benefit of society as a whole. While this might require some investment, be it direct from government or through established mechanisms such as targeting of agri-environment schemes, there is huge potential for developing this ambition as a central tenet of the IDB business as reflected in its aims and objectives. Instead the desired approach seeks to partition the landscape which will not achieve this outcome.

No. We feel the aims and objectives are skewed towards maintaining intensive farming and drainage and in themselves are incompatible. How will competing interests be managed? For example, what safeguards 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?

12

Do you agree with the proposed Drainage District boundary?

Inclusion of the Solway saltmarshes and intertidal of Moricambe Bay seems unnecessary as provision for watercourse maintenance could be made through these areas and they do not derive benefit or avoid damage as a consequence of the proposed WLMB operations. While the business plan acknowledges this lack of benefit and states that these areas would be exempt from agricultural rates it would be neater if these areas were outwith the identified boundary. While arguably justified on the grounds of being an ‘island’ within the wider flood zone 2 area, the inclusion of Wedholme Flow also seems unnecessary. This non-agricultural lowland raised bog derives no benefit from the proposed drainage regime and would not be a detriment if it were to be cut off for a period of time. There are a number of lowland raised mosses on the periphery of the WLMB area which would not derive benefit from the activities of the WLMB. These include Bowness Common, Drumburgh Moss, and Glasson Moss all of which are SAC. Inclusion of these areas appears to serve no purpose and much of the land is managed in a non-agricultural manner.

Do you agree with operating all 4 Pumping Stations, maintaining watercourses to pre-2005 levels and having a flat drainage rate across the district?

How does going back to pre-2005 levels fit with the duties to enhance designated environmental sites eg SSSIs. We are concerned that this will in effect mean that some of the currently wetter areas will revert back to being drier.

Do you agree with the proposed Board Representation?

The membership of the proposed Board does not match the statutory duties of the Board towards the environment and heritage. There needs to be a clear commitment to have a Board member with environmental knowledge … we suggest the Solway Coast AONB team have a seat on the Board.

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 regards biodiversity legislation, but may be more wide ranging, especially given this some of the areas location within the Solway Coast AONB. We would suggest that there should be a requirement for the IDB board to include representation of particular sectors be it from within its membership or co-opted in, but with a voting role, from outside. This should allow the board to fulfil not just its local powers but also its national duties and ensure that the importance of these duties is not overlooked at a board level.

Comments on The description of this document as an action plan somewhat over

13

the Biodiversity Audit & Environmental Action Plan

represents its scope, it acts as an audit and framework document but does not at present identify actions to be taken. While the current document identifies what considerations will need to be made with regards ensuring IDB activities are informed, for example survey commissioning and obtaining licences, it does not go as far as to specify how the presence of these species will influence management.

The costs of meeting statutory requirements have not been considered in the Justification Statement funding as no funding has been allocated (Table 5.2). Costs will include information gathering required to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment of the IDBs maintenance proposals; implementation of any Natura Protected Measures or any additional RBMP Measures required that are not specific to a Water Level Management Plan plus enhancement measures under its BAP.

No clear landscape or environmental benefits of the IDB are suggested and the budget of £1,000 is almost meaningless given the range of actions in the Biodiversity Action Plan. This will go nowhere compared to the costs of enhancement works that could be done if the duties towards the environment are carried out properly.

Other Comments The local cost in lost agriculture and related businesses will be severe if 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. Their contribution to the local economy is proven. In the longer term, if a number of new IDBs – possibly up to three – are formed in the north west, it may prove possible to combine their management and save costs.

It is acknowledged that Wedholme Flow NNR should be exempt from drainage rate but then goes on to state that Natural England should be making a contribution based on the assertion that: ‘Whilst the day to day water level management of the reserve is carefully controlled by Natural England there will be times when water may need to be held on the site and times when it needs to be discharged.’ This statement displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the functioning of raised bogs and is then used to justify the assertion that Natural England should be expected to contribute to running of the WLMB. This assertion relates equally to NE’s land ownership and raised bogs in NGO and private ownership.Allerdale has to contribute significant money to the IDB on behalf of non- agricultural occupiers. The EA are withdrawing public funding as it is not in the public interest. There will be no increased flood risk as they will continue to operate the main drains. Given that the chief beneficiaries are farmers, it is hard to see how Allerdale can justify this

14

expense.

3. NEXT STEPS

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

Reviewing the proposed boundary where there has been significant opposition from land occupiers and there is a hydrological basis for the land to be excluded from the drainage district. Consideration also needs to be given to including the Black Dub watercourse within the boundary subject to further consultation with these land occupiers and land owners. These boundary changes will change the estimated costs and income into the Water Level Management Board and will affect the level of drainage rates and Special Levy requiring further consultation.

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 Management Board’s statutory responsibilities.

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, Allerdale Borough Council needs to consider its view on the proposed Water Level Management Board. We recommend that Allerdale Borough Council delay their decision until a revised proposal has been prepared following the work on the ratings information and also the review of the consultation responses.

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

15

The Environment Agency is keen to ensure that a local solution is in place in the Waver Wampool before they decommission the land drainage pumps. They originally indicated that decommissioning would take effect from 31st December 2015, however last September the EA announced a temporary extension to continue the current maintenance in both these areas for a further 6 months whilst we re-consult local stakeholders on revised drainage rates and continue discussions with the Local Authorities. Depending on Defra’s investigation of the availability of ratings data, the notice period of withdrawal may be further extended whilst work continues on the proposals.

16

WAVER WAMPOOL PROPOSED WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT BOARDAREAS OF LAND WITHIN EACH PARISH

Parish Ha

Holme East Waver 2,766Holme Low 2,192Woodside 1,660Bowness on Solway 1,225Bromfield 1,109Holme Abbey 1,032Dundraw 957Holme St. Cuthbert 945Aikton 866Common land of Holme Abbey, Holme Low and Holme St. Cuthbert 711Kirkbride 686Thursby 666Waverton 496Kirkbampton 149Westward 103Westnewton 58Boltons 15Silloth-on-Solway 15Wigton 10Allhallows 0.13Aspatria 0.01

17