Supplementary memorandum submitted by
The Witham First District Internal Drainage Board and The Witham
Third District Internal Drainage Board (FL 155a)
I attended the oral evidence session at the
Lawns in Lincoln and was impressed by the Committee's grasp of
the main issues. I did inform you that I would write to you following
the session.
I was disturbed by some inaccurate "facts"
provided by some witnesses and consider that a response is necessary.
The main inaccuracies relate to evidence provided
by Mr Mark Harrison, the landlord of the Black horse public house
in Blyton, near Gainsborough. Mr Harrison was critical of my presentation
to the Citizens Jury held in Gainsborough and of the maintenance
regime of the Gainsborough Internal Drainage Board. I did stress
at the outset of my presentation that I was referring to the policy
of the Boards under my stewardship and would re-iterate and can
prove that these two Drainage Boards, whose area is over 15 miles
from Gainsborough, clear every watercourse of vegetation every
year and sludge out and reform on a ten year cycle. However, in
addition, I have established that Mr Harrison's premises do not
fall into any Drainage Board area. Indeed, the nearest Drainage
Board is over half a mile downstream of his premises. Consequently,
the lack of maintenance downstream of his property is due to riparian
owners failing to maintain the watercourse properly, as the activities
of the Drainage Board could not affect the Black Horse at Blyton.
I have been involved, at the request of West
Lindsey District Council, with the problem relating to the Bovis
Homes development which Mr Harrison referred to. I can confirm
that West Lindsey District Council refused consent for the development,
a decision which was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate.
The site is not, however, built on a flood plain as Mr Harrison
claimed but on a sloping site either side of a small watercourse.
Whilst I have not, as yet, received details of the surface water
disposal system from the development, I would not be surprised,
given the history of the site, if the development contributed
towards accelerated run-off (faster flow of water) into the dyke.
However, the main problem with this site is that a local builder
illegally culverted (piped in) the stream downstream of the site
using a totally inadequate pipe to increase the plot sizes. He
has since been declared bankrupt and had ceased trading. The residents
who now occupy these two dwellings will continue to be flooded
on a regular basis unless the dyke is restored (involving the
loss of car ports, walls, garden sheds, trees, shrubs, fuel stores
et al) or the culvert is replaced by a much larger one. The cost—several
thousand pounds—will fall on the householders.
In the submission of Steve Batty, whilst he
did praise Drainage Boards in general, he did refer to their failure
to attend meetings relating to the Humber and its environmental
status. Having briefly investigated the claim, I can confirm that
all of the Drainage Boards from the south bank of the Humber were
represented at all meetings. However, the much smaller, less well-resourced
Boards on the north bank did not have the same commitment. This
matter is currently being addressed by the Review of Internal
Drainage Boards. Recommendations approved by DEFRA and the Association
of Drainage Authorities are being implemented.
The balance between maintenance and nature conservation
remains a very delicate issue and is often dependent upon the
attitudes of the relevant officer in the local Natural England
office. Whilst I have long standing agreements relating to the
most appropriate timing of maintenance and improvement works,
I occasionally have difficulties whenever staff changes occur.
Of a much more aggressive nature is the RSPB who have twice instructed
me to stop all activities over all my drainage districts (some
100,000 square hectares—approximately 400 square miles)
when I have reported sightings of relatively rare species. You
might be astonished to hear that the Board no longer inform the
RSPB, as a matter of course, when rare species are sighted. However,
we retain strong and successful links with the Hawk and Owl Trust
and the British Ornithological Society.
If I might take the opportunity to comment on
other matters discussed: Mr Tipping asked why so many farmers
and other residents are not on the Environment Agency Flood Warning
Scheme? The short answer is that the current scheme is not fit
for purpose, particularly in sparsely populated rural areas. I
have personal experience of being woken several times during a
night to be informed that "all clears" have been declared
for areas many miles from my place of work or home address. I
am aware of some urban residents who have removed their details
from the scheme, despite being flooded, as they are constantly
instructed to take their animals and belongings to higher ground
as a problem is imminent over thirty miles away.
The principle of flood warning is sound, the
relevance to those being warned requires considerable fine tuning.
The Environment Agency website causes confusion
as the majority of Lincolnshire residents do not consider themselves
to be part of "Anglian" region as local government is
East Midlands based.
In my "spare time?" I am a long standing
Chairman of a small Parish Council in West Lindsey District. There
were a number of properties flooded in June. Despite over 34 years
experience in land drainage and flood defence, I find that obtaining
reasonable, reliable information, particularly from the water
undertakers and the County Highways, is extremely difficult and
frustrating. I can empathise with many of the comments made by
the witnesses. The websites of these Boards (www.witham-1st-idb.gov.uk
and www.witham-3rd-idb.gov.uk), include maps of the drainage infrastructure
for which the Boards are currently responsible. This is in line
with Board's policy for accountability and transparency. I believe
that the Drainage Boards are the only public (or private) authority
to take this stance. Indeed, the water companies levy a charge
to view the locations of their assets.
The task which you undertake is confusing and
complex. It is further complicated by the increasing domestic
use of water, the refusal of water companies to upgrade infrastructure
and the effects of climate change.
I offered my services to you in late December
and do so again. However, whether or not you take up my offer,
I trust that you will ensure that the evidence you consider is
factual.
C J Elkington
The Witham First District Internal Drainage Board
The Witham Third District Internal Drainage Board
January 2008
| 
