You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Police and other agencies have had to intervene. Apparently the land owner (not named) was fully aware of its SSI status before bringing the bulldozers in...
"The bank-side trees are all grubbed out and burnt, the river gravels have been scraped away, and the beautiful meanders of the river have been straightened and re-profiled," Chief Executive Helen Stace said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-55193809
Yes, but there is objections to any licensing on hunting, shooting, fishing... apparently they manage the ground for wildlife.
It's not different on Scottish rivers, it was just done 40 years ago and now mowed fortnightly...
Yep, the Spey has a lovely "natural" feel, but is managed pretty intensively along it's entire length. Luckily water quality is important to the Whisky industry, so at least pollution is minimal. I was just looking at this article. The before and after picture on some news websites are horrific.
^^Got a link showing the before pics mate?
They seem to get away with this on Cairngorm pretty regularly.
SEPA make the EA look competent
The track record of EA and NE even on SAC's for enforcement is abysmal. I expect the landowner will get a small fine, eventually.
Well if he gets a small fine that's **** all to do with the EA or NE but the courts who set the fine.
That's savage... Cynical me expects a slap on the wrists/trivial fine of the sort that if you said "pay X amount to totally ignore all the environmental concerns" you'd say "hell yeah, bargain".
Before
After
Permitted development
Shit, moonscaped.
Well if he gets a small fine that’s **** all to do with the EA or NE but the courts who set the fine.
A fine based on the evidence/legal arguements from the EA, presumably?
I don’t understand why this was done? What’s to gain from it?
Seen from a few posts from Angling Trust and Wild Trout Trust that they decimated the gravel bottom, which will take a long time to reverse. Those gravel beds are hugely important for spawning salmon and trout along with Invertebrates. No one makes any mention of who the landowner was? It just baffles me why someone would do this and cause such destruction.
I don’t understand why this was done? What’s to gain from it?
He is effectively canalising a section. Straightening, deepening, clearing banks. It will help reduce local field flooding moving the issue downstream. Natural rivers also move which can affect field boundaries/ ownership boundaries.
Second aspect is the habitat destruction may lead to the downgrade of the SSSI (see Trump's golf course in Scotland) as features no longer remain.
The only way to stop this is jail time, the fines do not scare landowners. The new power needed is the compulsory purchase of the affected area plus access for £1
Agree with above. Take the land off the ****er.
The only way to stop this is jail time, the fines do not scare landowners. The new power needed is the compulsory purchase of the affected area plus access for £1
I'm seeing no problem with those kind of punishments, but I'd like to see the owner named in the press reports, that seems odd?
, but I’d like to see the owner named in the press reports, that seems odd?
They won't name until charged, standard protocol that stops the police paying out later
The only way to stop this is jail time, the fines do not scare landowners. The new power needed is the compulsory purchase of the affected area plus access for £1
+1 fines are shit because it might actually be cost effective to do the damage and pay the fine if it gets you what you want, land or flood free land.
Also on the rest of big n dafts post.
One of our main streams of work is re naturalising watercourses, undoing work much like that carried out over the last 2 or 3 hundred years.
I don’t understand why this was done? What’s to gain from it?
I believe it was stop housing flooding, I live quite local and that stretch is very flood prone, I imagine it will only shift the problem to other houses.
Shocking before and after photos. 🙁
A fine based on the evidence/legal arguements from the EA, presumably?
Yes, evidence-based from the EA but as I said the Court will set the fine. They don't go in there with Rudy Guiliani representing them, they actually go into court with real evidence.
From our parish council.
I live quite local and that stretch is very flood prone
River on flood plains floods shocker. I thought we'd finally started to realise that natural flood plains are our best defence against flooding, not turning rivers into super fast water delivery systems.
That's fine if it isn't your mum's home that is on the flood plain. It's bonkers.
What people should do is when the EA reassess the flood plain and add their houses to it sue him for the loss. Riparian rights do not protect you from claims if you flood another property.
The PCC from the link above
Statement on the recent work at the Lugg
4th December 2020
Kingsland Parish Council is aware of the recent work done on the banks of the Lugg at Kingsland.The parish council has had a dialogue with the Environment Agency, and officers have attended online meetings in recent months. A site meeting with the Environment Agency in September 2020 identified issues near the bridge and the Environment Agency subsequently wrote that “the left hand bank directly upstream of the bridge could do with some reprofiling due to bank slumping… to ease conveyance as it is currently partially obstructing the 3rd arch of the bridge and will look to the landowner to carry out these works”. Another issue highlighted by the Environment Agency was “a build-up of silt and growth mostly Himalayan Balsam on both the upstream and downstream sides”.
The parish council supports work to improve the Lugg that is undertaken at the direction and instigation of the Environment Agency and is in line with the appropriate guidelines, regulations and processes that may be applicable.
May mean a prosecution is going nowhere due to a loosely worded email from the EA.
How doing the works now made sense to anyone is beyond me, outside the salmonid river working window, the top soil will get washed away as grass won't grow until spring, salmon redds in the gravels etc etc
Feargal sharkey is on the case...
https://twitter.com/feargal_sharkey/status/1335151773435179009?s=21
The EA is in the process of embarrassing the hell out of itself here, if the Parish Council has the correct view of matters.
Yep, taking that email at face value the EA almost encouraged him to do something similar. Sure, it might have had a different outcome in mind but the language used isn't completely at odds with what the land owner went and did.
Doesn't really excuse the landowner as he probably knew he was taking the piss but it might excuse him legally?
Seems the locals are happy.
""I have spent the past 10 months living in a mobile home on my parents' driveway with my children because our home was flooded in Storm Dennis. I have spent a fortune rebuilding our home and we are still not back in it yet. All the locals have been petitioning to have the river cleared but we have been ignored."
She added: "John has acted in the best interests of the local community."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/05/farmer-bulldozed-beauty-spot-protect-homes-floods/
If my house was threatened with flooding because a river had silted up over the years I'd support dredging it.
The EA is in the process of embarrassing the hell out of itself here, if the Parish Council has the correct view of matters.
Big difference between an official giving an informal opinion and formal permission to carry out work. The landowner is a chancer.
Heartbreaking. Know the Kingsland/Presteigne area quite well and the Lugg already suffers from rising agricultural pollution. That is just horrible. Imagine how much silt will wash in there now they removed the bank structure, trees etc.
Andrew Nixon, conservation senior manager of HWT, said: “The actions taken on this stretch of the river will have far-reaching consequences, both for this stretch of river and floodplain and further downstream.
“Removing all bankside vegetation and scraping out the riverbed and banks will cause a huge increase in the speed the water moves through the river and increases the flood risk downstream.
If my house was threatened with flooding because a river had silted up over the years I’d support dredging it.
Just like that? With no further inquiry or knowledge/care?
If my house was threatened with flooding because a river had silted up over the years I’d
support dredging it. wonder why TF I bought a house on a flood plain in the first place
FTFY
If my house was threatened with flooding because a river had silted up over the years I’d support dredging it.
And make it worse for everyone down stream? You cannot make flood water go away. Dredging is a ****ing stupid "solution" we know better than that now and yet you get muppets demanding dredging and refusing to have flood walls and embankments because it "spoils their view" at every community's engagement.
And make it worse for everyone down stream? You cannot make flood water go away. Dredging is a **** stupid “solution” we know better than that now and yet you get muppets demanding dredging and refusing to have flood walls and embankments because it “spoils their view” at every community’s engagement.
I absolutely empathise here. Not with the myopic muppets but the people who know what they're talking about shouting at a brick wall. Some of our locals decided the beach needed "cleaned up" and were all for tearing up the sea grass growing along the "beach". It got to the point that prosecutions were promised if anyone tore it up, no amount of evidence of dune erosion or such from elsewhere could make up for a "messy" beach. Then they bitch and moan about sand everywhere.
Getting a letter from ea with vague suggestions and getting sssi assent from natural England is a wholly different thing. It’s like your neighbour telling you he’d love a new car and then you going and stealing one as you’re doing it to make him happy!
Looks awful. I guess the farmer is hoping the general local support of old fashioned mistrust of science and the “authorities” will save him (see how that works in the US).
I don’t even see how there could ever realistically be a full and accurate assessment of the damage/destruction he’s done. Priceless. An ancient landscape and natural river course/bed along with all the wildlife/habitat destroyed for generations. The knock on effects from this are mind-blowing. The huge amount of silt he just prepared, now waiting to be washed in come next rains/spate/flood. Accelerated bank-erosion will now be an ongoing thing.
Himalayan balsam will enjoy the fresh bare soil he just created. Animal habitats will continue to be negatively impacted by the increased bank erosion, which in turn leads to increased sedimentation that can suffocate fish spawning beds.
Wilful ignorance, ‘anti-science/experts’, short-termism, entitlement and a proclivity for destruction seem to be on the rise just in time for when we (as a species) most need these attitudes and behaviours to be receding.
Found this from the local wildlife trust:
“Furthermore, lack of funding for the Environment Agency in England has left it unable to stop illegal practices. Figures from the Environment Agency recently revealed that 0% of rivers, lakes and streams are classed as in good health in England, despite a target for all waters to be in good health by 2027. To meet its promise of ‘word-leading’ environmental enforcement post-Brexit, the Government needs to urgently commit to stepping up resourcing for Natural England and the Environment Agency, as well as a truly independent Office for Environmental Protection.”
More here: https://www.herefordshirewt.org/news/horror-destruction-nationally-important-uk-river
+1 on SEPA being useless.
I contacted them about a local watercourse that's in a right state, but was historically well documented to be a really good wee trout burn, there's nothing in there now.
They apparently went for a look and concluded that it is caused by natural eutrification, due to a dry summer. Horseshit, it's farm run off, plain and simple, you only have to walk a few miles along it's length to witness just how many ****s the farmers give about it.
joshvegas
Free MemberIf my house was threatened with flooding because a river had silted up over the years I’d support dredging it.
And make it worse for everyone down stream? You cannot make flood water go away.
Funny how historically marshes were drained by digging ditches and dredging then. Water will go away faster in a 10ft deep channel than a 5 ft deep channel.
QDoes dredging ever reduce flood water levels?
ADredging can help reduce flood risk in some situations. For example:• if sediment is trapped at a structure (such as a bridge) that cannot be modified or redesigned, then removing sediment from the structure can help;• if a watercourse has been widened in the past and now traps sediment arriving naturally from upstream and it cannot be restored to a more natural state to prevent this, then removing the trapped sediment can help.
Funny how historically marshes were drained by digging ditches and dredging then. Water will [s]go away faster[/s] dump downstream onto someone else's land quicker, making the problem someone else's not mine in a 1oft deep channel than a 5 ft deep channel.
FTFY
Landowner should also be charged for the putting right (it will take years for that to deliver results mind) of this damage as well as the fine. Every landowner will know such work should have been officially approved by the EA. As others have said he's just taken a decision to risk what in all likelihood, will be a small fine.
Career went in a different direction so I've not kept up to date, but I did my placement year dissertation on biologically assessing the impact remedial groynes were having on a canalised section of the River Coln back in the day. We're taking many years ago here and everyone knew then, that straight,deep channels decimate the invertebrate and fish habitat as well as transfer the flood volume through quickly to other downstream areas that don't have the capacity to absorb it (flood plain to towns). So protecting natural river environments is not new, lefty scientific thinking, but established good practice in terms of both ecology and flood prevention.
BTW FYI The Groynes created meanders and the resulting water swirling around the river bed flush and deposit sediment of different sizes in different locations on the river bed. So a very diverse mix of invertebrates across a relatively small section of river (this was 250m long) adapted to their specific habitat as well as some scrubbed-gravel locations for fish spawning.
@irc What has a drainage ditch/marshes and removing sediment from around a structure (in this case a bridge) to do with destroying a mile of natural river and bank?
You’re even destroying your own argument by posting the SEPA advice,ie
• if a watercourse has been widened* in the past and now traps sediment arriving naturally from upstream and it cannot be restored to a more natural state to prevent this, then removing the trapped sediment can help.
Dredging will still cause serious environmental damage in these circumstances, so care must be taken.
*Ironically and tragically what the farmer has now just gone and done.
The way to reduce flooding is to plant trees
Needs more beavers.
Needs more beavers.
And Lynx to control beaver numbers.....and the deer that stop regen
In reality the only way to reduce flooding is to change land use, that isn't going to happen quickly or cheaply.
With regards to drainage this a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00tcTY_UEk4">video looks at the damage which can be caused by simply having lots of animals grazing.
tjagain
Full MemberThe way to reduce flooding is to plant trees
Yeeesss. Sort of. But in a very artificial watershed like a lot of ours are, it doesn't always work. It should do, but artificial-ised rivers can be really delicate so a smart change in one place can screw up the stupid stuff elsewhere.