Charles wades into meddling row over Duke’s f lood costs
PRINCE CHARLES has lobbied against cuts to flood defences on land owned by the country’s most senior duke, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
In a letter to environment chiefs that will fuel criticism that he uses his position to influence Government decisions, the Prince said the ‘unreasonable’ cuts would lead to unfair extra costs to the Duke of Norfolk, the owner of land near Arundel in West Sussex.
Although he did not name the landowner, the Duke’s family seat is Arundel Castle, and sources have told The Mail on Sunday that he was the subject of the letter.
The Environment Agency initially refused a Freedom of Information request to release the correspondence, until this newspaper lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner.
In the letter dated November 18, 2015, the Prince’s Assistant Private Secretary, Michael Whitehead, told Sir Philip Dilley, then chairman of the Environment Agency, to reconsider its decision to remove financial support.
He said: ‘It does appear to be most inequitable that any one party can suddenly be made liable for thousands of pounds worth of annual works… and potential responsibility for the safety of those who live in the vicinity. I therefore wonder whether you might look into this decision because, if nothing else, on a strictly moral basis, it would seem to be rather unreasonable.
‘Out of courtesy to His Royal Highness, perhaps you could let me know your thoughts about this.’
Mr Whitehead said the move was unfair because, unlike other areas where several landowners can contribute to flood defence, all the land ‘in and around Arundel is owned by one owner’. The Duke plays a key role in state occasions and his wife, Georgina, has been known to stand in for the Queen during State Opening of Parliament rehearsals.
The Prince has lobbied Ministers before, but his decision to take up the case of one landowner will prove contentious.
The Environment Agency said it did not change its policy in the light of the letter. Clarence House said: ‘ The Prince engages with i ssues where he believes his involvement may be of use. There is no constitutional reason why he should not.’
A source said the Duke had offered to match Agency funds for the work – he had not sought to influence the Environment Agency. The source added that Prince Charles had only offered to see if a solution could be found for estates damaged by mass flooding.