CAMPAIGNERS fighting to halt the huge South Lakeland flood defence project have bluntly stated “Kendal deserves much better” after it was confirmed funding for the entire project has now been secured.

The Environment Agency, (EA) who are piloting the scheme, revealed they are now able to confirm funding of £75.6 million, which will cover the entire cost of the three phase project, has now been secured.

This is a major step forward for the scheme, and with planning permission already granted for phase one of the project, which largely concerns flood defences in the town itself, the EA are now set to proceed with planning applications for phases two and three.

EA Cumbria flood risk manager Stewart Mounsey said it was planned for work to commence “in the springtime” with the planning application for phases two and three to be submitted this year.

But an alliance of residents and concerned parties, who have united under the banner ‘Save the Heart of Kendal,’ said they had no intention of giving up their campaign of opposition and would battle it every inch of the way.

“Save the Heart of Kendal are local people who care deeply about our community, town and wildlife,” said the group in a statement.

“Many of our campaigners and supporters were flooded, and we believe Kendal deserves much better than we are being offered.”

However, Mr Mounsey explained that each phase of the project had been studied in detail by the EA and extensive consultations had been made with everyone affected by the scheme.

And he insisted that as far as possible, their concerns had been studied and taken into account.

Following the devastation to the area by Storm Desmond in 2015, South Lakeland District Council and a host of other agencies linked up with the EA to address the issue with a view to ensuring as far as possible that a similar traumatic scenario did not reoccur.

An extensive three phase scheme was drawn up, and plans for the first phase, which focused on Kendal town centre and the area immediately upstream, were approved by SLDC in 2019 despite extensive opposition.

And the news this week that full funding for the entire project has been secured appears to clear the way for the project’s completion.

But a concerted and committed opposition, which significantly includes many residents whose homes were flooded in 2015, has refused to accept defeat, and have extensively leafleted Kendal residents this week as well as continuing to gather signatures for a petition demanding a review of the situation.

The group believe alternatives exist and must be fully explored before it is too late.

“We now have more than 3,500 signatures on our petition,” said one objector.

“We know this is a sensitive issue but there are two sides to every story.

“They are going to take away so many beautiful trees that have stood there for years and there are a host of environmental reasons why the plan should be opposed.”

Cheryl Berry won an award for assisting flood victims in the wake of Storm Desmond but has long been an opponent of the flood defence scheme.

“It will affect householders and businesses in the town and it will not be good for Kendal,” she said.

“There are other ways to look at this problem and to address it and we want these alternatives to be considered.”

The organisation have stressed that they only oppose “the destructive elements of the scheme” and have no issue with the many other aspects of the project.

Objections centre on fears the character of the town centre will be destroyed and also environmental issues including the removal of several hundred mature trees to facilitate construction work.

The group have stressed that they are not against a flood defence but their objections centre on the plan in its current form.

“We are asking the Environment Agency to pause, review and rethink the scheme and for there to be an independent review,” said the group’s statement.

“We call on the EA developer to pause, and for an independent review and rethink before irrevocable damage is done to our town and wildlife.”

However, Mr Mounsey stressed that the project had been examined in detail at every stage and consultations would continue at every stage as the project proceeded.

“There have been concerns that we are making the river a ‘concrete channel,’ but this is not the case,” he said.

“We have been working closely with SLDC on using materials matching the surroundings for all the walls, and it is not as extreme as as been portrayed.”

And in response to concerns by the opposition group that a ‘dam’ will form part of the project, Mr Mounsey explained that the work on the river was not in effect a ‘dam,’ but a complex mechanical means of controlling water flow.

He also acknowledged the concerns of many residents that groundwater rising up was a main cause of much of the flooding of properties.

He explained this issue was not directly under EA jurisdiction and said the ‘sealing’ of cellars and basements appeared to be the best way of addressing this problem.

The full statement issued by the 'Save the Heart of Kendal' group is as follows.

"Save the Heart of Kendal are local people who care deeply about our community, town and wildlife. Many of our campaigners and supporters were flooded, we believe Kendal deserves much better than we are being offered. The current Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme will not protect Kendal from another Storm Desmond, the first phase will newly expose over twenty houses to flood risk and increase the risk of catastrophic bridge failure, whilst increasing protection for 227 homes.

High concrete walls, huge dams proposed in phase three, and the removal of most of our riverside trees befit a project that belongs in the 19th century not 2020. We only oppose the destructive elements of this scheme and have no issue with the works proposed for Stock Beck for example, which flooded about half of the homes in Kendal. The mechanisms of flooding in Kendal were very complex, surface water, rising ground water, river and constricted culverts all contributed to flooding. The EA developer has never shared their full options appraisal. Their hands are tied, and the main reason this scheme is being forced through quickly is to secure £10 million of European Regional Development funding with a limited timescale and the sole purpose of protecting business; even though a significant number of our small and large employers do not support the scheme. We are very concerned about the carbon emissions, road chaos and impacts on trade and tourism of a scheme that will bring an estimated 30,000 lorries of concrete and materials into the north, centre and south of Kendal. We believe the outcomes do not justify the impacts on our cherished ancient townscape, river and environment.

The impacts of the scheme on protected or rare wildlife including otter, dipper, several species of bats, bullhead, declining Atlantic salmon and others have not been fully assessed. The loss of riverside trees and the services they provide by removing air pollutants, sequestering carbon and abating noise has not been fully considered either. Only 1% of the escalating £72 million KFRMS price tag is being spent on slowing the flow options in the catchment. Engaging with our farmers is a key part of the answer. We could develop and properly fund natural solutions on farms and support our catchment communities by investing in natural flood management and natural engineering. It works for Belford in Northumberland and it can work here alongside a range of interventions like properly funded property level resilience, water storage in existing catchment reservoirs and the options proposed for Stock Beck. Surely we can do better, before resorting to high concrete walls and dams in a SSSI and SAC protected river. We should not handover many tens of millions of pounds to large national or international civil engineering companies who will take the investment out of our area, when we could invest in our catchment and our communities. As other towns in the UK are thinking creatively about flood management and funding models, for example York, Pickering and the River Wyre, let’s look to those to find answers and a better future for Kendal.

The current Kendal flood scheme mitigation commitment of 3,666 replacement trees seems meagre in comparison to neighbouring Lancaster City Council's commitment to plant 1 million trees. Our Government has committed to planting 30 million trees a year, and Kendal Futures are calling for 1 million trees in the Kent catchment. We need to raise our game. The five hectares of wildlife reserve being offered as mitigation is misleading, this land has already been reclaimed by nature when management ceased at Sandy Bottoms several years ago. Wildlife has colonised this area without our help; kestrel, barn owl, heron, sand marten, roe deer and otter can all be observed in the area.

We call on the EA developer to pause, and for an independent review and rethink before irrevocable damage is done to our town and wildlife."