Select Committee on Agriculture Sixth Report

APPENDIX 26

Memorandum submitted by the Country Landowners Association (F38)

INTRODUCTION

  The CLA welcomes the opportunity of contributing to the Agriculture Committee's inquiry on "Flood and Coastal Defence". Many of our members, both in coastal areas and inland are totally independent on the land drainage/flood defence/coastal defence infrastructure to protect their economic, and environmental interest in the land.

  From the time of the Romans, and maybe before, generations of landowners and inhabitants on the coastal fringe have sought to build defences against the intrusion of the sea onto their land. Some have even ventured to reclaim land from the sea. Their stake in coast defence policy is high—without protection their homes and businesses will simply disappear.

  Agriculture occupies 77 per cent (18.5 million ha) of the total land area of the UK. There is no figure for the total floodplain area of the UK river systems, and even the total length of 70,000 kilometres of statutory main river does not give the complete picture. Beyond this are many thousands of kilometres of arterial watercourses, with narrow yet nevertheless important flood plain areas. It is sufficient to say that inland floodplains are very significant in terms of UK agricultural land use, and support a whole range of enterprises from extensive grazing to horticulture.

  Over decades, generations and centuries, an integrated approach to land drainage and coastal defence has been established. The investment, both public and private, has been considerable and, on the basis of such protection, important land use and business decisions taken. It is vital that this investment is not jeopardised in the future. It is against this background that policy, investment and procedures should be judged.

THE CASE FOR LAND DRAINAGE AND FLOOD DEFENCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

  Agriculture is a major occupier of river and coastal plains. Agricultural production systems and the standard of soil water control and flood defence have been developed over many years involving considerable resource costs. The present drainage infrastructure is a major national asset.

  But an agricultural land use does not just mean fields of wheat or grazing animals. With it go landscape features and important wildlife habitats such as hedgerows, ponds, banksides, spinneys and woods but, just as important, people and rural communities themselves. The very habitats, landscape and community that it has created and sustained. There are, therefore, significant environmental, social, as well as economic aspects related to agricultural land use in the floodplains.

  The notice that, because there is a potential surplus of food production in Europe UK agriculture must not develop further, is flawed. There is a better case to be made that it needs to get nearer to the market; that it must continue to restructure; and that it must be made environmentally responsible. But there remains a strong case for the continuing investment in flood defence, both capital and maintenance, to ensure the future of agriculture in river and coastal floodplains. Of the 11.05 million hectares of agricultural land in England and Wales, 5.74 million hectares are totally dependent upon land drainage in order to support existing agricultural enterprises, and over 50 per cent of Grade 1 agricultural land is below 5m ODN. The infield drainage systems require an integrated outfall network involving ditches, arterial watercourses, and so to the major river systems; finally the inland system needs adequate sea walls to protect it and the vulnerable low-lying coastal and estuarial land. It is important that we do not lose sight of the need to maintain the nation's drainage and coastal defence systems upon which a very significant part of "UK Agriculture Plc" depends.

FLOOD DEFENCE POLICY

  The aims, objectives, and priorities of Government were set out in their 1993 paper, "A Strategy for Flood and Coastal Defence".

Aim and Objectives

  The aim of the Ministry and Welsh Office policy is to reduce the risks to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and erosion:

—  by encouraging the provision of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems;

—  by encouraging the provision of adequate, technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable flood and coastal defence measures;

—  by discouraging inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding or coastal erosion.

PRIORITIES

  The safeguarding of lives must clearly be the highest priority. The emphasis placed on protection of life, and hence on those parts of the country where large numbers of people live and work, is reflected in the priorities published by the Ministry and Welsh Office. These priorities are, in descending order:

—  flood warning systems;

—  urban coastal defence (sea defence and coast protection);

—  urban flood defence;

—  rural coastal defence and existing rural defence and drainage schemes;

—  new rural flood defence and drainage schemes.

  Clearly on this basis, expenditure for rural schemes is low in the list. We are concerned. It is important to distinguish between increasing agricultural production and maintaining agricultural productivity. New capital and maintenance works are still necessary to maintain agricultural cropping and husbandry patterns.

  In policy terms, the CLA believes that there should be a presumption in favour of maintaining land drainage systems and flood defences which protect agricultural land and rural property to at least their present standards. Where, for engineering, economic or environmental reasons, changes in standards are proposed, these must be in full consultation with landowners and occupiers; and all material factors will need to be considered, including recognition of the full economic situation.

DELIVERY OF POLICY

  Policy is developed nationally by MAFF, DETR and the Welsh Office. Flood defence policy is delivered by the Environment Agency (EA), Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) and Local Authorities (LAs). By and large, the relationships work well, but from a CLA perspective the role and functions of the Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs) (including the Local Flood Defence Committees (LFDCs) as the local, practical arm of the RFDCs) and the IDBs are crucial.

  The role of the RFDC in relating national policy and standards to regional problems and solutions is a key factor in getting value for money. The constitution of LA membership, as well as broader functional representation, provides an effective executive committee.

  IDBs continue to play their key role in managing land drainage/flood defence over 1.2 million hectares of high flood risk areas. Their contribution is not only to agricultural areas but to significant areas of residential, industrial and commercial development.

  The budget for flood and coastal defence represents a considerable proportion of MAFF's total budget. When the Department comes under pressure for budget savings, the impact can be significant.

  Over recent years, MAFF and EA have developed formal project planning procedures and spending programmes which match allocations. In addition to capital funding from Government, both the EA and IDBs are dependent on LA contribution. With pressure on LA spending generally, there is a problem when they seek to reduce spending on flood defence thus leaving the drainage authorities with revenue problems. We see a need for clearer guidance from Government on this issue.

  The CLA's major concerns with current policy, and its application, is that it leads investment away from rural areas to the more urban protection projects. Over time, a lack of investment to maintain standards in rural areas will have serious economic, environmental and social effects.

ECONOMIC/ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACE

  From time to time tensions are created over perceived insensitive land drainage/flood defence works and their impact on the environment. Over recent years much has been done to resolve the problems with the clear lead given by MAFF, being taken up by both the EA and IDBs in terms of design and practice.

  The CLA has reservations on certain aspects, for example, the policy of "managed retreat". Our major concern is that the so-called "soft" approach to flood defence works should not mean "do nothing". Whilst we recognise that the drainage powers of the EA are permissive, we do believe that landowners, whose land has been protected for generations, should not be exposed to solutions that will have a major negative economic impact. For example, there are large areas of highly productive land in East Anglia that are protected by very long lines of defence walls—inappropriate managed retreat would create major problems and anyway the realistic opportunities for managed retreat are miniscule. It is in this type of area where the tension is at its greatest.

  In addition to farmland, there are also areas of important environmental habitat that could be at risk to such policies. In the CLAs view, this issue is becoming significant and needs further attention by Government and the drainage authorities.

EFFECTIVENESS

  In evaluating the effectiveness of policy and delivery of land and coastal defences, the CLAs objective is to seek appropriate protection for agricultural land and rural property from fluvial and tidal inundation. To secure this, we need to be assured of adequate programmes of capital and maintenance on arterial channels and coastal defences in rural areas.

  In concluding this submission, we would add the following points for consideration by the Committee:

—  The flood defence and land drainage service provided by the operating authorities, and in pursuance of MAFF and other Government Departmental policies, has been maintained to a good standard. We do have grave concerns that rural areas, and their drainage infrastructure, are being left behind by the current priority system.

—  There is no case to make substantial changes to the way in which the service is managed. Policy making, strategic planning, and operational activities have combined to deliver a service from which the public have derived considerable benefits.

—  MAFF have provided the necessary incentive through grant aid to ensure that an adequate response is made when standards of protection are exposed as being inadequate. Equally, issues such as land tilt and sea level rise have been embraced within design standards ensuring that longer term flood risks are appropriately addressed and standards maintained.

—  National benefits arise from flood and coastal defence works and it is entirely appropriate that central grant funding remains available. We would not want to see any further reduction in resource allocation.

—  The EA and IDBs have provided an independent, yet fully integrated, service; the former managing strategic issues, coastline and other defences, and major river systems, with the latter providing the more detailed water level control in the low-lying, particularly sensitive, areas.

—  The two-tier approach of the EA and the IDBs to flood defence works well, without any duplication of effort or cost, and ensures appropriate levels of management input against varying circumstances. An integrated approach between sea defences and coastal defence is essential and there may be some for rationalisation the relationship between the EA and LAs in promoting coastal defence works.

—  The service of land drainage/flood defence is unique in that it is provided for the public good using an infrastructure which is substantially in private ownership. The EA and IDBs own virtually no lengths of the river/drainage system, and it is essential to the success of the service that the closest links are established between landowners and operating authorities. This is substantially achieved with landowners representatives on both the EA's flood defence committees, the IDBs, the RFDCs and the LFDCs.

—  It is important to maintain the good working relationships which exist between drainage authorities and the owners of land through which the channels flow and upon which defence works are established. It is essential that these links are maintained. The present membership of flood defence committees and IDBs, combining councillor and ownership interest, are models which have proved to be successful.

—  The relationship between operating authorities and Central Government is of paramount importance, and whilst there might be a case for a policy leadership role by the DETR, there is a stronger case for flood defence and land drainage to remain with MAFF. Whilst flood protection to urban areas is currently the priority, the commitment by both the EA and IDBs to protect agricultural areas must remain. Certainly the considerable majority of site activity will take place on agricultural land through which much of the protection to urban areas is provided. The sea and tidal defences, which are predominantly earth embankments, are sited on privately owned land, the vast majority being part of agricultural holdings.

—  MAFF policies in recent years have sought to serve all interests. They have prioritised urban needs, placed conservation duties on the operating authorities and are aware the national and local importance of agriculture (notwithstanding our concern of the impact of the priority system). They have presided over possibly the best examples of sustainable development where protection works, many firstly in place centuries ago, continue to provide the benefits initially sought. The current arrangements work and the CLA support the retention of flood and coastal defence as a MAFF function.

—  Whilst capital schemes are the focus of attention, the most important aspect of flood defence and land drainage systems is their maintenance. Flood protection gives a confidence which leads to investment in areas resulting in large numbers of people and property being dependent upon that protection. Once this signal has been given, and reacted to, it is imperative that the operating authorities maintain the standards of protection to that installed. The funding of maintenance is therefore just as important as achieving new standards of defence or flood warning.

—  It is vital that funding for maintenance and capital works in rural areas is at an adequate level and there is evidence that in some cases this needs increasing. The funding of flood and coastal defence improvements and flood warning schemes should not deplete that necessary for this purpose. The present income sources should be sustained, including that recovered from ratepayers and drainage charge payers.

  The CLA would be pleased to submit further information should the Committee so wish.

24 April 1998

---

---

Prepared 5 August 1998