You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Spotted this in the local rag today and on social media. Looks like there could be some fairly major construction work by the end of the decade if it goes ahead.
Obviously too early to know which option they go for (raise current dam walls, build new higher dam wall adjacent to current ones or build a new fourth one in a new location) but all of them have a substantial impact.
Link below to the business case for those interested.
I cant be bothered reading all that. Whats it about?
I cant be bothered reading all that. Whats it about?
In simple terms Severn Trent need to add extra water storage capacity.
One option is to expand the current Ladybower dam infrastructure. The other is a new dam somewhere else.
Both will face huge opposition - then in 10 years time people will be flocking to the new reservoir as the latest tourist attraction, like they do to Carsington Water.
On to the important stuff - how will this affect the classic loops/trails around there? Also, I assume the beautiful existing dam will remain intact in any scenario?
The issue will be the feasibility/acceptability of raising the level of 19th Century historic tourist attraction dams vs the idea of an new dam somewhere further up the valley.
You would have thought the second option would be the only viable one, so where would they put it? Further up from Howden, flooding either the side valley up towards Alport, or more of the Derwent up past the FB at Slippery Stones, and the start of the climb up Cut Gate?
Derwent wall can't (massive air quotes) be touched because its listed. If they raise Ladybower then goodbye A57 crossing, hello "we might as well stick a new motorway across the middle of the Peak". New res above means goodbye Cut Gate. New res below means goodbye Bamford.
I understand the need for water but the danger here is the Critical national infrastructure card... once that has been waved & used in a National park then expect any and every development to be approved AKA no more protected land.
They are saying that construction will only take 3 years, I do not believe that for second.
The current administration provides the least resistance for a century to major development within national park boundaries. They simply do not value them.
Oh they value them alright, they value them as an untouched recourse ready to be exploited.
One of the options under consideration is to build new, taller dams in front of the existing ones, and submerging the existign infrastructure. I cannot believe that even got out of the brianstorming session! I guess they have to include a totally non-viable option to get peoples hackles up, so that the chosen option doesnt seem so bad in comparison.
Odds-on it'll be a new dam somewhere upstream. Looking at the lay of the land on the pam it'll be in the valley west of Howden Res, opposite side from "howden Moors". That valles looks to be steep sided, unpopulated, contian no PROWs, is wooded with conifers so of low heritage/ecological value and has an access track leading right to it making construction easier. Also the lowe slopes and velley are not in the "right to roam" areas.
You may be able to incresse the height of Howden Dam itself, but I'd imaging the engineering, heritage and operational complexity with doing so woudl make building a new dam the better option. It'l be easier/cheaper to buil dnew than ammend current infrastrucucture. Also, as a new project it'll be more likley to get NSIP status, makign the planning process easier...
There you go, 5 years of consultation and a million quit on professional fees saved right there!
then goodbye A57 crossing, hello “we might as well stick a new motorway across the middle of the Peak”.
Or hello "higher/longer bridge"
Whatever they do will be very controversial. The document is marked "Official Sensitive" which in my understanding would normally mean it shouldn't be posted on the web.
There must have been a leak
There must have been a leak
👏
STW=SingleTrackWorld, Severn Trent water & sewage treatment works...
As someone who works in civil engineering and has dealing with these sort of things*, this gets very confusing sometimes!
*Not dams, before anyone jumps on me. Interesting though.
IHN
Or hello “higher/longer bridge”
Perhaps one that was high enough and long enough that it would join the proposed M67 extension and was 3 lanes wide in both directions.
Odds-on it’ll be a new dam somewhere upstream. Looking at the lay of the land on the pam it’ll be in the valley west of Howden Res, opposite side from “howden Moors”.
The further up the valley you go the more you cut down the watershed feeding the reservoir. All of the valleys above Howden have pretty small watersheds. If Alport Castles is anything to go by the geology on the west side of the valley is ‘interesting’, which isn’t a great thing when you’re building dams. Raising Ladybower makes a lot of sense but I believe its an earth cored dam which I’d guess would make raising the dam more interesting (Severn Trent needed two goes at getting Carsington right so I’d be nervous if I lived in Bamford or Hathersage)
Perhaps one that was high enough and long enough that it would join the proposed M67 extension and was 3 lanes wide in both directions.
Leaving the 'old' A57 as a nice quite road for cycling? I'm in 😉
It's been fairly empty lately.
Why don’t seven Trent fix the leaks in the existing network first?
@edward2000 too expensive and difficult. Many of them will be small leaks under roads, which dealing with individually will be too disruptive and expensive for only a small gain. Granted if they were all fixed then jobs a good un, but unfortunately I doubt its like that.
Looking at a map damnig Westend River as keithb suggests is probably easiest, there's a very steep, narrow constriction in the valley at the bridge near Fox's Piece, and there's already a road all the way up there, they could always do Abbey Brook as well whilst they're at it.
I expect / hope that any work will come with an obligation on them to restore / increase access to leisure activities, so that there will continue to be a cycle route around the reservoirs / access to Cut Gate.
Raising Ladybower makes a lot of sense but I believe its an earth cored dam which I’d guess would make raising the dam more interesting
I think the document refers to Upper Derwent Valley - i.e. not affecting Ladybower reservoir.
I'm intrigued by the "new dams downstream of the existing dams" option. At first sight this means flooding the existing dams, but maybe not. Building new dams say half way down Derwent and Ladybower reservoirs would allow raising the upper half of those reservoirs. That would potentially mean the downstream walls of the existing dams would be partially submerged. There is no mention of the increased storage required in the document so given the surface area of the reservoirs it might not need much increase in level to provide the required increased storage. The upper reservoir above Howden dam would not be impacted - so no threat to Cutgate - phew.
There would inevitably be some impact on approach roads, trails and facilities whichever option (if any) is chosen.
If they cut off the feed to Rivelin early then there may be no need to do any of this work, but doubt it'll be enough
Was going to come in to suggest fixing leaks first but beaten to it. I notice that document is dated dec21 and has pre application stakeholder engagement down as happening all this year. Considering this is the first anyone has heard of it does this suggest that it’s not happening? Presumably residents of bamford would’ve been classed as stakeholders?
All the rain that falls in that watershed is captured at present, so the real question is whether they need more catchment or more storage. I suspect that a new reservoir would have to be somewhere else entirely.
The option that isn't mentioned (which I'm not supporting) is building a new dam immediately upstream of Derwent Dam, so preserving it. That would take Derwent reservoir out of service temporarily, maybe not for as long as raising it. It would also partly or completely drown Howden dam, which is also listed, but they might argue that saving one dam is enough.
Amazingly, I find myself erring on the positive side of increased water storage AND hydro power (pumped, run of river and dam stored).
The Power from the Glens programme has dramatically changed our landscape up here. But no more than grazing of sheep or the sport of shooting of critters and beasts has changed our landscape. And certainly less than the roads and buildings built all over our landscape.
In my head, drinking water is a foundation of life. Particularly in England this is now reaching an urgent need to invest in more storage and water management for retention and reducing floods.
Energy produced by dams, pumped and run of river is also 'relatively' small an area for a reasonable amount of power. Does anyone know how much energy the same area of upland windfarm produces compared to a dam?
Hmmm.
@Greybeard it says in the opening statement, 1.1, that the aim is for storage.
All the rain that falls in that watershed is captured at present, so the real question is whether they need more catchment or more storage.
More capacity means more of the wet season runoff can be captured and stored hence less likelihood of running dry in summer.
Presumably residents of bamford would’ve been classed as stakeholders?
Why? The development is in the Upper Derwent Valley.
Why? The development is in the Upper Derwent Valley.
The construction will be a multi-year project. As a minimum the extra traffic, noise and pollution will be a concern
Bigger concerns are the safety of communities below the dams as the work goes on - where does the water go that's not being stored? The other thing to mention is less storage capacity whilst they build the new impounding res etc. etc.
There are many stakeholders in such large infrastructure projects, to ignore them is at best ignorant.
Pieface
If they cut off the feed to Rivelin early then there may be no need to do any of this work, but doubt it’ll be enough
Interestingly the volume of water coming out of the Rivelin feed is 110% of the water going in the Rivelin feed.
slowoldman
Why? The development is in the Upper Derwent Valley
One of the proposals was to build a dam below Ladybower, flooding Bamford.
What they should really do is dam off the Calder Valley. We all know nature is already trying to flood them out and it's a whole new catchment area. The money saved on continuingly trying to "fix" Mytholmroyd would make it cost neutral.
@thepodge - source? A dam that would flood Bamford would probably flood the Hope valley too
A chat over coffee with someone far more on top of these things.
I think if you went from Thornhill to Bamford centre you'd get a good sized res and not disrupt the Hope Valley.