'Dangerous message' over Cuckmere's future

THIS small parish council has been concerned since 2002 about the planning and management of the River Cuckmere by the Environment Agency, particularly south of the A259 main coast road between Eastbourne and Seaford.

We believe that the Agency is adopting an entirely defeatist attitude by encouraging flooding of this area with such a small rise in sea levels '“ just 85mm (3.5inches) on the highest spring tide - predicted in the next 50 years.

The Cuckmere Valley is a very precious, unspoilt and beautiful place with the classic river meanders, many examples of bird life, and rare plant life in a setting of fresh water meadows, rare in their own right.

In the Environment Agency's proposal there is a very dangerous message that allowing the area to go back to being a naturally operating estuary is desirable.

The history of the river, when it was a naturally operating estuary (ie: before 1846) is one of considerable flooding up to and beyond Alfriston.

The raised path at the northern entrance to that village gives an idea of just how deep the risk might be. The flooding then was caused by the river mouth becoming blocked with shingle because of the difficulty of preserving a shifting and uncertain outlet, so that the only route for river water to escape was by infiltration through the beach.

Horse-drawn wooden ploughs were used to try to keep the mouth open but a single storm could easily close it.

East Dean's Parish Records of 1799 state in essence that the lack of banking management across the Cuckmere valley plain south of Exceat had wrought havoc to the countryside for centuries.

The main route to the coast was via a track on the western side of the valley, no southerly access was noted on the eastern side. The western line of embankment, now forming part of the Cut, had not altered since de Ward's map of 1618. (Mediaeval flood defences for the Abbot of Michelham's land).

Decades of spring tides flooded the valley to a depth of eight feet. This extension of the sea widened to a quarter of a mile across the valley towards Exceat, hastened by storms that lashed the feudal causeway (now the A259 South Coast Road).

The 1840 reconstruction of the Exceat Causeway effectively made the crossing safer by widening the road. Previously, it had been described as being dashed with waves, which threatened its destruction and that of travellers on the road.

It was in 1846 that the menace was finally removed by the cutting of a straight artificial channel for the river (the Cut), embanking it off from the old course of the river. The Cut also improved river flow and virtually removed flooding upstream, although, as we experienced in 2000/1, it is still an occasional threat.

Therefore, a proposal to breach the Cut would seem to revert back to the situation that existed prior to its construction. That situation was fraught with destructive problems, which could be dangerous and also very expensive to resolve.

It is essential in our view, that a more measured approach is taken. The banks of the Cut should be maintained now whilst sensible long-term plans are developed over the next 25 to 50 years. The action proposed by the agency would be largely irreversible and should only be contemplated when absolutely necessary. On-going maintenance is not as expensive as the agency makes out. Farmers repair the banks with the materials that were used before in the way banks have been maintained over the centuries.

The agency claims to be working in a partnership with other bodies. The partnership only welcomes membership from like-minded bodies, and therefore excludes local and district councils, which disagree with its approach.

The Environment Agency needs to be stopped in its tracks, and made to listen to local people.