Monday's Letters: Break up the Environment Agency to prevent flooding

Since about 1985 the Environment Agency has failed to carry out any dredging on all but a few rivers. This is because they have a policy of wildlife conservation. The policy is misguided because the silting up of a river bed more often than not is the real cause for the destruction of habitats, particularly for the fish which normally spawn only in rocky river channels.

The impact of this policy was not appreciated until serious flooding started about 10 years ago. The agency was then asked to dredge the rivers, but refused because it was against their policies – set in stone, in far away London, by a government quango with no local accountability.

Instead, they produced a number of expensive "River catchment flood management" plans. These are all about flood "management" and have very little to do with "flood prevention".

In Ryedale's case, the plan was not just a refusal to dredge the river channels, but also an intention to remove flood defence banks in order to "restore the natural flood storage by allowing the river to reconnect to its natural flood plain". The implementation of such a plan would be disastrous for a district like Ryedale, where the entire Vale of Pickering is mainly land reclaimed from marsh centuries ago.

The solution was to look for opportunities within the agency's policy which allow some work to be done. So for example, if the policy will not allow dredging, it is still possible to consider works which might prevent or diminish the deposit of silt in critical parts of the river bed – without breaking the policy.

Ryedale and others have commissioned a hydrological engineer to discuss ideas of this kind with the agency, and as a result, our latest "Flood Management" plan is far more sensible than the earlier versions.

This process is expensive and also very frustrating for those of us who know that, if half the money spent on consultants by the agency was actually used for dredging the rivers, a lot of money could be saved and used for better purposes. However, it is the only practical short-term solution.

The long-term remedy is to break up the Environment Agency into its constituent river boards, so as to make them all locally accountable. The experiment of using a national body to manage and protect local landowners has clearly failed, and this should be recognised.

From: Coun Paul Andrews, Great Habton, York.

Back garden rules have not changed

From: John Healey, Minister for Housing and Planning, Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

CONTRARY to the impression given by Tory Shadow Communities Secretary Caroline Spelman, the rules governing development of homes on back gardens have not changed since 1985, when her party still had 12 more years in power ahead of them ('Garden grabbers' threatening suburban areas, councils warn, Yorkshire Post, February 18).

Councils already have the powers and discretion they need to protect the character and essence of their local neighbourhoods.

Independent research I published last month showed that local authorities who have put in place clear, local policies have been successful in dealing with this issue and have found that decisions to reject applications are rarely over-turned on appeal.

Yet the same research showed that only five per cent of councils who regard 'garden grabbing' as a concern have adopted specific plans to address it.

As your article makes clear, the power to stop unsuitable back garden development lies in the hands of local councils and your readers should be encouraged to hold them to account for doing so.

Balancing act on economy

From: Ralph Musgrave, Garden Avenue, Durham.

I AM increasingly irritated by the claim that a quick reduction in government borrowing would harm the recovery. The reason people jump to this conclusion is obvious enough: reduced Government borrowing means raised taxes and/or cutting public spending, and the two latter certainly reduce demand, other things being equal.

But other things aren't equal: notice the phrase "reduced Government borrowing" just above? Reduce something, and it won't be equal to what it was before the reduction.

Government does not borrow because it needs money: it can print any amount of money any time it wants. Government borrows so as to depress demand from the private sector and thus make room for its own spending.

Thus if we raise taxes (or cut Government spending) plus reduce government borrowing there needn't be much effect on demand, on the basis of the above reasoning. That is, the demand reducing effect of increased taxes is approximately matched by the demand increasing effect of reduced Government borrowing. Thus there needn't be much effect on the recovery.

The above reasoning does oversimplify matters somewhat, but this is a letter, not an article. That is, anyone with a knowledge of economics (me included) can add in a few minor complicating factors to the above argument. But I challenge anyone to find a fundamental flaw in it.

Another view on India

From: David McKenna, Hall Gardens, Rawcliffe, Goole

I was interested to read Len Fincham's letter in support of colonialisation (Yorkshire Post, February 15) and to let him know that, although I did not live and/or work under the Raj during English rule in India, contrary to his statement, I do know something about modern world history. Merely stating that everything went down hill when the colonial masters left does not answer the question as to why that happened. Ghandi might well have wept, as Len Fincham says, when India was partitioned but this was done, not by Ghandi or Jinna but by the colonial masters when Lord Archibald Wavell, in February 1946, produced the blueprint detailing the areas of British India that should go to Pakistan.

It was Churchill who said that Wavell was "eminently suited to run a provincial golf club". Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Should Len Fincham wish to read up on India instead of using the argument that "I was there", I would suggest he begin by reading Wolpert, Yasmin Khan but most of all The Shadow of the Great Game by Narendra Singh Sarila. He might well see a picture that he did not see at the time.

Airport jobs 'pie in sky'

From: B Townend, Maple Drive, Auckley Village, Doncaster.

I WAS interested and amused to read the letter from Andrew Bosmans (Yorkshire Post, February 3) regarding the increased night flying at Finningley.

Living as he does, some 20-minute drive from the airport he will not know when night flying takes place, nor will many members of our council, living in Sprotbrough, High Melton and the like, which are all on the other side of town.

Having served in the Royal Air Force and having lived next to air bases most of my life, I am annoyed at the use of misinformation.

Almost all freight aircraft are old passenger planes converted; the QC4 category includes old versions of the Jumbo. How the 100 night flights (that is one plane per week in and out) will create 400 jobs is pie in the Finningley sky.

By all means look at making a success of the old base but please don't elaborate in the belief that no one else understands the facts.

Claims about fox hunting repeat popular myth

From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.

JOHN Grice in his letter (Yorkshire Post, February 10) questions the efficacy of and the way on which the law against hunting with dogs was put into effect using the Parliament Act.

He should remember this went through the Commons on a free vote with many Conservatives voting in favour. It was then faced with the prospect of being thrown out by the unelected "toffs" in the House of Lords who had an in-built majority.

CI Jackson (Yorkshire Post, February 10) refers to yet another myth, regularly repeated, about the quick "one bite at the back of its head". In this case how very convenient and fortunate for his friend on her very first hunt to be able to keep up with the pack and be within a few feet of the kill to witness this humane act.

What puzzles me about this often made claim is who decides which hound will creep up to the fox and make this final bite? In a pack of anything up to 60 bloodthirsty hounds do they all stop for the nominee to proceed and if so, has he been selected by secret ballot or perhaps the fox hounds' trade union? This claim is nonsense.

On a general note, I have heard masters of hounds in interviews say they normally only catch old or sick foxes. How then does this equate

with the need to control the fox population?

It is generally accepted that more people now follow hunts but could the ban possibly have been responsible for this by people who love to ride but do not enjoy seeing a fox close to exhaustion and then being ripped to pieces, joining in.

Hunt supporters always refer to this as a ban on foxhunting hoping it might encourage support from the public, but it should be remembered that the Bill is against hunting with dogs. This includes any animal and I feel sure anyone, except hunt followers, who have witnessed a stag hunted to exhaustion would not wish to see this Bill repealed.

Home front needs care

From: Kevin Maguire, Hanover Street, Batley.

There is a strong realisation that we are entering an age

of longevity owing to medication, medical care and nursing care and we are at an age where it is now acceptableto have your independence as long as possible in your own home.

Nursing and residential homes cannot keep up with demand and puts increased pressure on home care and other local services. Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq and care for our own aging population?

Winner's words leave sour taste

From: AJ Porter, Beverley

WITH reference to the quote from Michael Winner (Yorkshire Post, February 18): "The North is an alien country, another land, providing food that is absolutely pathetic."

It is fortunate that Mr Winner has this opinion as we never want this rude, arrogant, self-opinionated character up here in Yorkshire.

Let him stay in the South where he belongs where food is extortionately priced and never value for money.

I came to Yorkshire 30 years ago and I know where I would rather be.

Extra duty

From: Alan Carcas, Cornmill Lane, Liversedge.

WHEN VAT was temporarily reduced to 15 per cent, the Chancellor added two per cent duty to fuel to offset the reduction in tax collected from motorists.

Now that VAT has been increased to 17.5 per cent again, this hidden tax has not been removed, hence the recent rises in fuel costs. Another Labour stealth tax.

And the opinion polls suggest there still seems to be some people who want to vote them in again. Another five years of this?