River Lugg, Herefordshire

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
The 'mitigating circumstances you cite' (i.e. '...the instructions from the various parties to carry out the work') would have formed the case for the defence in the event of a Not Guilty plea. However they have no bearing on the sentencing as he has pleaded Guilty. The Law is very black or white in this... you can't be 'a bit guilty' or a 'bit innocent'. He's Guilty so no more evidence can or will be submitted.
There are however other types of mitigations that could be considered by the Court to decide on the tariff which may include his mental and financial state, his 'good character' etc. (though I don't think he'd be expecting much from this as he was previously convicted in 2007 for unauthorised works) and the likelihood of him re-offending (see previous point...).
Possibly the most serious of his offences was Breaching a Stop Notice which falls under Contempt of Court and is viewed very dimly by the people in red gowns and funny wigs. Custodial sentences are not uncommon for this.
You can in Scotland, Not proven (acquitted, so not guilty, however the crown has not proved guilt although jurors believe the defendant is guilty).
 

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
So the drain that caused this is EA responsibility, the have finally admitted this after initially denying it, there are several blockages downstream but instead of clearing them they have now split the drain in 2 and are saying the bottom end where the blockages are is 'low risk' as there is no property affected and the top end is high risk, now anyone with half a brain would realise that if the bottom end is blocked then the risk of flooding upstream is greatly increased but they won't have it and are now spending £thousands building a computer model to prove this!!

View attachment 1037508
just imagine, if instead of detritus causing the blockage it was a Beaver Dam, then would anyone ever be able to clear it?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
If the land is zone 3 then it is zone 3 the level cannot change
If only it were THAT simple.

The flood zones are based on a mix of known historic floods and modelling of theoretical flood risk. This has significant implications:

  • Modelling, especially river flood modelling, is only as good as the survey data it is based on (which is always constrained by cost)
  • Flood models are "calibrated" (checked for accuracy before being used) by running them for historic floods to see if they accurately predict the same outcome. They never do so it is about how close is close enough.
  • The catchment will have changed since the floods used to calibrate the model so the process is always a bit of a bodge.
  • Flood recording is often only done in detail for urban areas these days due to cost. This means there are often no accurate historic flood records for greenfield development sites. That means their flood risk assessment relies solely on modelling (which lacked good calibration data).
  • Developers will often spend way more money than the EA can afford to commission their own flood models for their site which often just happen to show the site is actually at lower risk than the EA ones. It then becomes an argument at planning about whose model is right, the Developers expensive one or the EA "cheap" one (bear in mind that £100k doesn't buy much of a flood model and both sides are using the same flood modelling consultants - there are very few in that game).
The system is rigged in favour of the developers (well, the big ones anyway. How many people building a single house or a farm shed are willing to spend £100k + on a flood model to contradict the EA ones?).
 

Northern territory

Member
Livestock Farmer
What annoys me about all this is nature will reclaim and thrive after that work was carried out. All our water course does now is harbour mainly predators, badgers, foxes , otter, mink. My Dad has lived on this river 50 plus years and remembers when mixed wildlife were more abundant than today, that was when the rivers were properly managed.
 

Hjcarter

Member
It’s these type of cases which Mr Prices barrister should be highlighting to the judge as mitigation for what he did.
Not sure whether that would help.

I don't know enough about the lugg case but from what I can see there was likely some permission/ agreement to do some work, Price went over and above that and caused what some people are calling damage, EA apparently asked him to stop and then launched a dawn raid that was better than Russia's on Ukraine (pickups, vans, police cars,etc - no tanks), blew it up for the media. Someone from EA started playing Judge Dredd on social media with "soil squad" instantly finding him guilty. Price's beak has probably told him to suck it up as its the best course of action. In the meantime EA have presided over damage to a major drain nr Bedford so are covering their asre and dragging their heels into a report that is likely to damn them.

All the while Britain's waterways from ditches to dykes, rain water gullies to river stay neglected.

And the river lugg.... from what I hear appears to be flowing well and greening up nicely.


Me, I'm going to go and shovel more shti under my apple trees because that is something I understand!

Happy Saturday everyone!
 

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
If only it were THAT simple.

The flood zones are based on a mix of known historic floods and modelling of theoretical flood risk. This has significant implications:

  • Modelling, especially river flood modelling, is only as good as the survey data it is based on (which is always constrained by cost)
  • Flood models are "calibrated" (checked for accuracy before being used) by running them for historic floods to see if they accurately predict the same outcome. They never do so it is about how close is close enough.
  • The catchment will have changed since the floods used to calibrate the model so the process is always a bit of a bodge.
  • Flood recording is often only done in detail for urban areas these days due to cost. This means there are often no accurate historic flood records for greenfield development sites. That means their flood risk assessment relies solely on modelling (which lacked good calibration data).
  • Developers will often spend way more money than the EA can afford to commission their own flood models for their site which often just happen to show the site is actually at lower risk than the EA ones. It then becomes an argument at planning about whose model is right, the Developers expensive one or the EA "cheap" one (bear in mind that £100k doesn't buy much of a flood model and both sides are using the same flood modelling consultants - there are very few in that game).
The system is rigged in favour of the developers (well, the big ones anyway. How many people building a single house or a farm shed are willing to spend £100k + on a flood model to contradict the EA ones?).
I think, going forward, house buyers need to take on board the phrase Caveat Emptor and need to undertake a bit more due diligence before purchasing a property on a flood plane (or for that matter in danger of a flash flood).
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
I think, going forward, house buyers need to take on board the phrase Caveat Emptor and need to undertake a bit more due diligence before purchasing a property on a flood plane (or for that matter in danger of a flash flood).
But they don't, do they? Then, when they DO flood they expect the tax payer to sort out the mess.

We argued that, where houses were built against EA advice on flood risk grounds, a statutory notice should be attached to the deeds stating that buyers should satisfy themselves as to the actual risk of the property before buying and any subsequent flooding would not be fixed at public expense. We were told this was not feasible as it would blight development.

I thought that was the point?
 

tepapa

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Wales
So Mr Price had verbal permission in principle to do works to the river, so obviously EA were happy to damage the SSSI.

The problem arrises where Mr Price did work on a longer stretch of river than what the EA thought necessary. But maybe that was necessary and Mr price used his experience to to the job properly. The EA with very little experience of civil works deemed this amount of work unnecessary so did not fully understand what they were agreeing to when they initially gave permission.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
So, just to check. The EA are responsible for watercourses. And we pay them. But they don't have to do anything? At all? Ever?

And when they do do something, down in the fens, they balls it up then try to cover their arses rather than hands up and fix it asap?
They do have 2 "duties", things they MUST do in law:

1. Overall supervision of watercourses (which has never been tested in law).
2. Operating a flood warning service.
 

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
They do have 2 "duties", things they MUST do in law:

1. Overall supervision of watercourses (which has never been tested in law).
2. Operating a flood warning service.
Do they not have the same riparian responsibilities we all have like taking water from higher ground etc? Surely if the idb for example keep their stretch clear, but then when it gets to the EA bit there's three foot of crap in the way they have to sort that?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Do they not have the same riparian responsibilities we all have like taking water from higher ground etc? Surely if the idb for example keep their stretch clear, but then when it gets to the EA bit there's three foot of crap in the way they have to sort that?
Yes, but only in the few places where they actually own the river.

Of the 650 Miles in my old patch the EA only owned about 3 Miles.
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
The EA are actually only a "statutory consultee" of the local authority planning process and DO NOT have a veto on development in the flood plain.

Many times we objected to flood plain development only to be told "you are the only statutory consultee objectors so we are going to approve the application"......
Yep that's exactly how our local planning authority act they
are a law unto themselves.If they want something to be built they will find
reasons but conversely use every consultee to their advantage if they have
already decided to object.
 
vladtheimpailer could you answer me 2 questionons
1. What happens to all the animals living along side the river and in the fields when the water floods their homes?
They either move out and then repopulate once the waters have receded or drown. Has ever been thus and wildlife has managed to exist like this for millions of years
2. Have you ever tried the experiment filling a pint glass half full of sand and then pouring in a pint of water to see if it all fits in?
The problem with dredging rivers and the type of works that Mr. Price has carried out is that whilst initially it allows for a greater volume of water to move downstream (which in turn can cause problems for those downstream) but reduces flow levels in the summer which leads to silting up - a process which is accelerated by removal of bankside vegetation which makes the banks potentially unstable. After a few years you are faced with a silted-up river channel that needs dredging again.
There has been a lot of research and work carried out on the best method for flood prevention and the current thinking is to try to slow down and disperse the water (like a good old fashioned water meadow, you know those things that all got destroyed in the last century).
If you simply dredge wider deeper rivers then the water flows faster downstream to where your neighbour hasn't dredged and their land floods worse than it used to.
Mr. Price may have relieved flooding in the area temporarily but will have potentially made it worse downstream and the effects will be short lived.
Flood management is far more complicated than simple examples of pint glasses and sand or a bloke with a JCB who thinks he knows best...
 

Werzle

Member
Location
Midlands
They either move out and then repopulate once the waters have receded or drown. Has ever been thus and wildlife has managed to exist like this for millions of years

The problem with dredging rivers and the type of works that Mr. Price has carried out is that whilst initially it allows for a greater volume of water to move downstream (which in turn can cause problems for those downstream) but reduces flow levels in the summer which leads to silting up - a process which is accelerated by removal of bankside vegetation which makes the banks potentially unstable. After a few years you are faced with a silted-up river channel that needs dredging again.
There has been a lot of research and work carried out on the best method for flood prevention and the current thinking is to try to slow down and disperse the water (like a good old fashioned water meadow, you know those things that all got destroyed in the last century).
If you simply dredge wider deeper rivers then the water flows faster downstream to where your neighbour hasn't dredged and their land floods worse than it used to.
Mr. Price may have relieved flooding in the area temporarily but will have potentially made it worse downstream and the effects will be short lived.
Flood management is far more complicated than simple examples of pint glasses and sand or a bloke with a JCB who thinks he knows best...
If you dont pollard riverside trees they grow so big and blow over and rip the bank out with the roots. All very well this " it will flood worse further downstream" arguement but if thats correct then letting 1 of the 3 arches block has caused people upstream to flood . I dont believe in dredging rivers with gravel beds but the ditches that supply them ought to be dredged and the rivers should be cleared of obstructions like fallen trees and mounds of washed up gravel
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
If you dont pollard riverside trees they grow so big and blow over and rip the bank out with the roots. All very well this " it will flood worse further downstream" arguement but if thats correct then letting 1 of the 3 arches block has caused people upstream to flood . I dont believe in dredging rivers with gravel beds but the ditches that supply them ought to be dredged and the rivers should be cleared of obstructions like fallen trees and mounds of washed up gravel
Pollarding the bankside trees is the landowners' responsibility, isn't it?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
UK rivers are not natural systems. They are almost all artificially managed in some way.

Nature doesn't expect a watercourse to convey much more than typical annual flood flows without going out into the flood plain. It's humans that can't accept that and so need to increase their capacity. It then all becomes a trade off between nature and man.
 

Northern territory

Member
Livestock Farmer
UK rivers are not natural systems. They are almost all artificially managed in some way.

Nature doesn't expect a watercourse to convey much more than typical annual flood flows without going out into the flood plain. It's humans that can't accept that and so need to increase their capacity. It then all becomes a trade off between nature and man.
Surely though with more concrete and tarmac there is more of a need to manage them properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.2%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top