The Beverley and Barmston Drain is the main feature of a land drainage scheme authorised in 1798 to the west of the River Hull in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England. The area consisted of salt marshes to the south and carrs to the north, fed with water from the higher wolds which lay to the north, and from inundation by tidal water passing up the river from the Humber. Some attempts to reduce the flooding by building embankments had been made by the 14th century, and windpumps appeared in the seventeenth century. The Holderness Drainage scheme, which protected the area to the east of the river, was completed in 1772, and attention was then given to resolving flooding of the carrs.
Embanking the River Hull, and carrying water away from the carrs in a lower level channel was suggested by several engineers, but there was opposition to making the scheme really efficient. Some came from the Holderness Drainage, who insisted that any embankments must ensure that land to the west of the river flooded before their own area was threatened, while an outfall to the Humber was resisted by the Port of Hull, who wanted the water to enter the river to sluice silt from its mouth, known as the Old Harbour. The Beverley and Barmston Drainage Act 1798 (38 Geo. 3. c. lxiii) was finally obtained, and work began. Water from the north east of the region was diverted to a new sea outfall at Barmston, and of drainage cuts were constructed, the main channel running broadly parallel to the river, but following a straighter course.
Although more efficient than the Holderness scheme, flooding remained a problem, because of the restrictions place on the height of embankments. A route for an outfall to the Humber was blocked by numerous roads and railways, an attempt to dredge the Old Harbour in 1864 proved disastrous, and pumping failed, because the water overtopped the low banks further downstream, and re-entered the drain. However, in 1880, agreement was reached with Holderness Drainage, and a joint scheme of dredging the river and raising the banks on both sides of it ensued. Steam pumping stations at Arram Beck, later replaced by one at Wilfholme, and at Hempholme contributed to the success of the land drainage scheme.
More recently, the organisational structure has changed. Henry VIII's Statute of Sewers 1531 (23 Hen. 8. c. 5) was swept away by the Land Drainage Act 1930 (20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 44), and responsibility passed through six bodies, ending with the Environment Agency in 1995. Local drainage channels were managed by an internal drainage board, and again responsibility has changed as the three internal drainage boards managing the area have gradually merged. Steam pumping was replaced by diesel, and subsequently by electric pumps.
History In the period after the Romans left Britain, the valley of the River Hull consisted of large areas of marshland, stretching northwards from the Humber almost to Driffield. The marsh was between wide, and was interspersed with a number of small islands of higher ground. There is no evidence that drainage of the marshes took place during the late Iron Age or Romano British period, but there is plenty of evidence that the islands were inhabited during this time. There is much less evidence for habitation during the Anglo-Saxon period, but by the eleventh century, there were several settlements in the southern salt marshes. Much of the area, however, remained a lake, fed by water from the chalk springs on the edge of wolds to the north, from the Holderness clays, and from inundation by the tide twice a day. Following the Norman conquest, some form of defence against the tides was provided by the construction of earth banks along the Humber and the lower reaches of the River Hull. Ongoing maintenance was a problem, and in 1311 and 1313, King Edward II appointed ad hoc commissioners to repair some of the breaches that had occurred.
While the embankments prevented the tide entering the area, they also prevented the fresh water from the north from leaving it, and drainage channels were cut to channel it to sluices through the main flood banks. Some of the early channels were cut by the monks of Meaux Abbey, but their primary function was probably navigation rather than drainage, since they ran east–west rather than north–south. Land drainage in England became more organised after the passing of the Statute of Sewers in 1532. This established Commissioners of Sewers for the main marshland areas of the country, with powers to inspect banks, to assign the work of maintenance, and to impose fines on those who did not comply. By the early seventeenth century, the salt marshes to the south were generally free from flooding, although in 1646 a severe storm resulted in a breach near Drypool, which resulted in Stoneferry being flooded for 26 weeks. The protection of the salt marshes had been achieved by erecting a large flood bank at Sutton, which prevented water from the carr lands to the north from entering the marshes, but as it then had nowhere to go, the carrs remained waterlogged. Various plans for a new outlet to the south were suggested from the 1660s, but were met with opposition. In 1675, a local landowner called Sir Joseph Ashe cut a drain from Wawne carrs to the Hull, using windmills to pump the water into the Hull, and others followed his example.
A major development began in 1764, when a body of people called Holderness Drainage obtained an act of Parliament, the Holderness Drainage Act 1764 (4 Geo. 3. c. 47 ) which excluded land to the east of the River Hull from the jurisdiction of the Court of Sewers. They employed the engineers John Smeaton and John Grundy, Jr. to advise on a scheme for the Holderness level, and the main Holderness Drain was completed by October 1767. Work continued on building banks and drains until 1772, by which time the works had cost £24,000. The success of the scheme resulted in several areas to the west of the river attempting to improve drainage. Cottingham was the first, obtaining the Cottingham Inclosure Act 1766 (6 Geo. 3. c. 78 ) which allowed them to enclose the land and cut a new drain to join the Hull at Stoneferry. The Beverley and Skidby Drainage Act 1785 (25 Geo. 3. c. 92) was obtained to improve an area below Beverley by cutting a new drain which carried the water to a point further down the Hull. The area had previously been drained to a sluice called Wharton's clow at Cottingham since 1747. Flooding in these two areas had never been as serious as that in the carrs further to the north, and in 1796, the landowners started to consider how this might be remedied.
Opposition The outfall for the Holderness Drain had been built on the Hull at Stoneferry, rather than at Marfleet on the Humber, not because it was the best solution, but because of pressure from the Port of Hull. They were keen that the water should be discharged into the Hull so that the scouring effect of fresh water in the river on the Old Harbour would not be reduced. The new scheme faced similar opposition, not only from the Port of Hull, but also from the Holderness Drainage Commissioners, who imposed conditions on any new scheme. Banks on the west side of the river had to be at least from any banks maintained by the Holderness Drainage, to give the river space to flood, and to reduce the pressure on the existing banks. Any new banks could not exceed the height of the corresponding banks on the eastern side of the river, and there was to be a stretch of where the new banks were at least lower than the lowest banks of the Holderness scheme. This was to ensure that if there was a flood, it would be the west side that flooded, rather than the east. Reluctantly, the landowners accepted these conditions.
Engineers were consulted, and there was general agreement that for a scheme to succeed, the Hull and its tributaries would need to be embanked, and water from the carrs would need to be carried away by a lower level drain, quite separate from the river. Several options for an outfall were proposed, including into the sea at Barmston to the east of Driffield, into the Humber at Dairycotes, or into the Hull near Cottingham clow. Although a dock had been built at Hull in 1778, later to be known as the Old Dock, ships entering it still had to pass through the Old Harbour, and so the same arguments that had prevented a Marfleet outfall for the Holderness scheme were brought to bear on the new scheme. The Dock Company, Hull Trinity House and Hull Corporation combined to exert pressure, even promising to contribute £200 each towards scouring and deepening the Old Harbour, to enable the water to drain more efficiently. Again the landowners succumbed to the pressure, although there is no evidence to suggest that the £600 was ever spent on improvements.
The Beverley and Barmston Drainage Act 1798 (38 Geo. 3. c. lxiii) was finally obtained, and work began. William Chapman, who had produced a report in 1796, was engaged as Chief Engineer, and oversaw the construction of of drainage cuts, or embankments to contain the River Hull, and the long Barmston cut. At the southern end, an outfall sluice into the Hull was constructed, and the main channel required 11 tunnels to carry it under existing waterways. 27 road bridges were required, as well as several occupation bridges, together with numerous culverts. The cost of the project by the time it was completed in 1810 was £115,000, and it gave protection to some of land. The resident engineer for the project was William Settle, and Thomas Dyson was the main contractor for the outfall sluice and the tunnel under Beverley Beck. At the northern end of the Hull valley, various channels were made deeper, and the Barmston cut carried water to the sea at Barmston. A barrier was constructed at Foston on the Wolds to prevent water from north Holderness which had previous drained westwards to the Hull from doing so, and this part of the project was known as Sea End, and became a separate drainage region. The of lower banks, required to satisfy the Holderness Drainage and known as the overfall, were built near Grovehill, at the southern end of the level.
Development
The Beverley and Barmston Drain was straighter and larger than the Holderness Drain, and only carried lowland water. It was therefore more efficient at draining the Beverley and Barmston level, but it still did not solve the problem of flooding entirely. One factor was the limits placed on the height of the banks, and in particular the overfall. Another was the difficulties of embanking the tributaries on the Hull, several of which were fed by powerful springs. A third factor was the development of the Driffield Navigation. Its enabling Act specified the maximum water level above the lock at Hempholme, but this was frequently exceeded, resulting in flooding and the surrounding ground becoming waterlogged. Despite the risks, much of the level was ploughed and used to grow crops of barley, oats and wheat, although some of the lowest parts were retained as parture. In common with other drainage schemes, the land levels fell as the peat soils dried out, resulting in increasing difficulties in keeping the carrs free from water. However, opposition from the Port of Hull to making cuts to the Humber waned after 1810, as additional docks were constructed, and the importance of the Old Harbour declined, while a period of agricultural decline from 1815 to 1830 resulted in there being no funds for any improvements to the drainage scheme during this period.