River Lugg, Herefordshire

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...

Listen bud, river maintenance and dredging works have been carried out for decades if not centuries in some areas. Then your gang get put in charge, fudge all gets done and everything floods. And floods badly, too. If they can't do it or don't want to do it, put it in the hands of organisations who know what they are doing.

Many many parts of these catchments are either wholly man-made, re-routed or improved by man or surrounded by man made structures all of which interfere with the way water moves across a catchment. It does not take a genius to realise that man will have to manage how water reaches the sea also. You seem to be suggesting that wildlife should take precedence over people's homes and livelihoods being flooded and destroyed. Fudge that will bells on top. Rotational maintenance and drainage work is far less disruptive to wildlife than you make out and certainly less disruptive than thousands of acres being under water for days or weeks killing every fudging thing.
 

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
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...
I have listened to your garbage long enough. If you want to know what happens when your idiotic thoughts on dredging are put into practice then you have to look no further than the Somerset levels disaster created solely by the EA and the wildlife trusts, Thankfully the stupidity of both organisations in the area has been recognized and the action plan for the restoration of the Somerset levels is progressing well thanks to these idiots no longer having any say in the management of the area. Just a shame the EA and wildlife trusts were not forced to compensate everyone for the flooding which they caused and was entirely preventable. As for your bulls**t research the best way to prevent flooding has always been and will always be to get to peak flow as quickly as possible then to maintain peak flow by use of storage. Its not rocket science and farmers have been doing it for decades with the design of surge ponds (dykes and ditches).
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Listen bud, river maintenance and dredging works have been carried out for decades if not centuries in some areas. Then your gang get put in charge, fudge all gets done and everything floods. And floods badly, too. If they can't do it or don't want to do it, put it in the hands of organisations who know what they are doing.

Many many parts of these catchments are either wholly man-made, re-routed or improved by man or surrounded by man made structures all of which interfere with the way water moves across a catchment. It does not take a genius to realise that man will have to manage how water reaches the sea also. You seem to be suggesting that wildlife should take precedence over people's homes and livelihoods being flooded and destroyed. Fudge that will bells on top. Rotational maintenance and drainage work is far less disruptive to wildlife than you make out and certainly less disruptive than thousands of acres being under water for days or weeks killing every fudging thing.

This is what was going through my mind today.

'Rotational management' is essential and such routine works apply to waterways, hedgerows, badgers, etc.

Impacts are minimal when things are done little and often but impacts are huge when nothing is done due to idiots trying to prevent them or when the amount of corrective work that is required is in itself, huge.
 
These strokers are just goading for a reaction, best to just not feed em !
Or to bring some facts into the conversation to counter the opinions that 'Mr. Price is a farmer and therefor must have done the right thing...'

Let's just run over the FACTS again:-

  1. Mr. Price, the EA and Kingsland Parish Council held a joint meeting where it was agreed by all parties that Mr. Price could unblock a river arch and carryout silt removal and bank reporfiling immediately upstream of said river arch
  2. Mr. Price proceeded to carry out bank reprofiling, channel straightening and deepening and removal of bankside vegetation, trees etc. over a length of 1.5km (not 'immediately upstream' as had been agreed). It should be noted that no official permits or agreements were in place to consent these works.
  3. The site is an SSSI (the assumption being that Mr. Price would have known this and therefore been aware of additional permits and agreements required to carry out any works)
  4. Mr. Price was in possession of a tree filing license. The Forestry Commission did not bring a case against him.
  5. Mr. Price used a bulldozer over some lengths of the river which destroyed the river substrate
  6. Mr. Price subsequently carried out more works approximately a year later despite having being issued with a Stop Notice by a Court
  7. Mr. Price was convicted and fined £10,000 in 2007 for unauthorised waterways works
  8. Mr. Price has pleaded guilty to all charges.
Now feel free to pile in with any opinions you like, but the above is a matter of record and cannot be argued against.
 
Last edited:

Bongodog

Member
When we moved in to our cottage about 6 years ago there were loads of house martin nesting but ever year there were getting less now not seen one this year, seen some swallows flying around, whats it like in other parts of the country ?

This was one of the blockages that caused the flooding to the McDonalds site along with many other properties in Dec 2020 (£3m damage)

View attachment 1037509

They did eventually clear the blockage but the force of the water severely damaged the bank and footpath alongside,
but they are saying this is nothing to do with them and 18 months on it still looks like this

View attachment 1037510

It it the EA who need hauling up in front of a judge but it appears they are accountable to no one!
So thats why lots of business people spent the build up to Christmas with a mop and bucket ! £3m sounds very low for the flood damage, I heard one claim was £1.5m and know that another was 500k. Must have been around 25 businesses affected. The field where Macdonalds is has always been wet. I recall that originally Morrisons over the road was meant to be built on stilts, but the plans were changed as it "wasn't necessary"
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Or to bring some facts into the conversation to counter the opinions that 'Mr. Price is a farmer and therefor must have done the right thing...'

Let's just run over the FACTS again:-

  1. Mr. Price, the EA and Kingsland Parish Council held a joint meeting where it was agreed by all parties that Mr. Price could unblock a river arch and carryout silt removal and bank reporfiling immediately upstream of said river arch
  2. Mr. Price proceeded to carry out bank reprofiling, channel straightening and deepening and removal of bankside vegetation, trees etc. over a length of 1.5km (not 'immediately upstream' as had been agreed)
  3. The site is an SSSI (the assumption being that Mr. Price would have known this and therefore been aware of additional permits and agreements required to carry out any works)
  4. Mr. Price was in possession of a tree filing license. The Forestry Commission did not bring a case against him.
  5. Mr. Price used a bulldozer over some lengths of the river which destroyed the river substrate
  6. Mr. Price subsequently carried out more works approximately a year later despite having being issued with a Stop Notice by a Court
  7. Mr. Price was convicted and fined £10,000 in 2007 for unauthorised waterways works
  8. Mr. Price has pleaded guilty to all charges.
Now feel free to pile in with any opinions you like, but the above is a matter of record and cannot be argued against.


Maybe you could explain the rigorous requirements that have to be met for a stop notice to be issued and how someone subject to such a stop notice can appeal that notice.
 

honeyend

Member
Or to bring some facts into the conversation to counter the opinions that 'Mr. Price is a farmer and therefor must have done the right thing...'

Let's just run over the FACTS again:-

  1. Mr. Price, the EA and Kingsland Parish Council held a joint meeting where it was agreed by all parties that Mr. Price could unblock a river arch and carryout silt removal and bank reporfiling immediately upstream of said river arch
  2. Mr. Price proceeded to carry out bank reprofiling, channel straightening and deepening and removal of bankside vegetation, trees etc. over a length of 1.5km (not 'immediately upstream' as had been agreed)
  3. The site is an SSSI (the assumption being that Mr. Price would have known this and therefore been aware of additional permits and agreements required to carry out any works)
  4. Mr. Price was in possession of a tree filing license. The Forestry Commission did not bring a case against him.
  5. Mr. Price used a bulldozer over some lengths of the river which destroyed the river substrate
  6. Mr. Price subsequently carried out more works approximately a year later despite having being issued with a Stop Notice by a Court
  7. Mr. Price was convicted and fined £10,000 in 2007 for unauthorised waterways works
  8. Mr. Price has pleaded guilty to all charges.
Now feel free to pile in with any opinions you like, but the above is a matter of record and cannot be argued against.

I know nothing of the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of this, but there must be some advantage that is worth over £10,000 and court costs, or he must be very stupid.
My step father used to fiddle with his internal drainage, which was covered by the DB, he was well aware of the risks and it would be in the back of the fag packet calculations. As it happens they never noticed until he wanted to sell up and put it back. How many people shove their water somewhere else so it doesn't flood their land, as part of routine maintenance, by the time it floods, the bank, 'has always been there'.
So what is worth £10k +plus costs, and a day in court?

While water companies are allowed to pump untreated sewage on a regular basis in to rivers, which appears to be legal, which is almost a countywide problem, it seems the bigger the 'offence' the more you are allowed to get away with.
 
Last edited:

Werzle

Member
Location
Midlands
Or to bring some facts into the conversation to counter the opinions that 'Mr. Price is a farmer and therefor must have done the right thing...'

Let's just run over the FACTS again:-

  1. Mr. Price, the EA and Kingsland Parish Council held a joint meeting where it was agreed by all parties that Mr. Price could unblock a river arch and carryout silt removal and bank reporfiling immediately upstream of said river arch
  2. Mr. Price proceeded to carry out bank reprofiling, channel straightening and deepening and removal of bankside vegetation, trees etc. over a length of 1.5km (not 'immediately upstream' as had been agreed)
  3. The site is an SSSI (the assumption being that Mr. Price would have known this and therefore been aware of additional permits and agreements required to carry out any works)
  4. Mr. Price was in possession of a tree filing license. The Forestry Commission did not bring a case against him.
  5. Mr. Price used a bulldozer over some lengths of the river which destroyed the river substrate
  6. Mr. Price subsequently carried out more works approximately a year later despite having being issued with a Stop Notice by a Court
  7. Mr. Price was convicted and fined £10,000 in 2007 for unauthorised waterways works
  8. Mr. Price has pleaded guilty to all charges.
Now feel free to pile in with any opinions you like, but the above is a matter of record and cannot be argued against.
Regardless of the above do you think its right for rivers and brooks to be left to block with trees and debris which then causes the water to stagnate and gather scum ? Do you also think its good for rivers, brooks and streams to block and cause areas to flood and erode the banks? As a farmer im bred to love and nurture nature but our rivers are becoming stagnant swamps because they cannot flow.
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
Or to bring some facts into the conversation to counter the opinions that 'Mr. Price is a farmer and therefor must have done the right thing...'

Let's just run over the FACTS again:-

  1. Mr. Price, the EA and Kingsland Parish Council held a joint meeting where it was agreed by all parties that Mr. Price could unblock a river arch and carryout silt removal and bank reporfiling immediately upstream of said river arch
  2. Mr. Price proceeded to carry out bank reprofiling, channel straightening and deepening and removal of bankside vegetation, trees etc. over a length of 1.5km (not 'immediately upstream' as had been agreed). It should be noted that no official permits or agreements were in place to consent these works.
  3. The site is an SSSI (the assumption being that Mr. Price would have known this and therefore been aware of additional permits and agreements required to carry out any works)
  4. Mr. Price was in possession of a tree filing license. The Forestry Commission did not bring a case against him.
  5. Mr. Price used a bulldozer over some lengths of the river which destroyed the river substrate
  6. Mr. Price subsequently carried out more works approximately a year later despite having being issued with a Stop Notice by a Court
  7. Mr. Price was convicted and fined £10,000 in 2007 for unauthorised waterways works
  8. Mr. Price has pleaded guilty to all charges.
Now feel free to pile in with any opinions you like, but the above is a matter of record and cannot be argued against.
In the grand scheme of things 1.5 km is immediately upstream, so no bother then (y)
 

7610 super q

Member
Arable Farmer
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...
OK, but just one small point.....the " good old fashioned water meadows that got destroyed " were ploughed up and cropped during and post WW2 because the nation was starving. Something I doubt you, your family , Monbiot, Packham and others of that ilk have ever experienced.
 

Werzle

Member
Location
Midlands
I know nothing of the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of this, but there must be some advantage that is worth over £10,000 and court costs, or he must be very stupid.
My step father used to fiddle with his internal drainage, which was covered by the DB, he was well aware of the risks and it would be in the back of the fag packet calculations. As it happens they never noticed until he wanted to sell up and put it back. How many people shove their water somewhere else so it doesn't flood their land, as part of routine maintenance, by the time it floods, the bank, 'has always been there'.
So what is worth £10k +plus costs, and a day in court?
Not everybody do things for their own benefit/advantage, hard to imagine in this day and age with modern people acting worse than animals but most farmers are abit old school and have something called a moral compass. Many locals thing Mr P is a hero for commonsense and now do not suffer the misery of flooding because the EA couldnt be bothered to clear blocked bridge arches. They seem to find money for court cases, new trucks, tech and office staff upon office staff but they seem allergic to any actual graft
 
Regardless of the above do you think its right for rivers and brooks to be left to block with trees and debris which then causes the water to stagnate and gather scum ? Do you also think its good for rivers, brooks and streams to block and cause areas to flood and erode the banks? As a farmer im bred to love and nurture nature but our rivers are becoming stagnant swamps because they cannot flow
Yes agree blockages need to be removed. Mr. Price was given verbal permission to unblock one river arch and remove the silt build-up immediately upstream from this caused by the blocked arch. No other action was identified during the meeting with the EA and PC. The immediate area is not subject to 'extraordinary' flooding and as another poster has pointed out, the village of Kingsland is an a Zone 1 area (low risk of flooding) so his reasons for doing this are only know to himself.
The EA are more than happy for riparian owners to carry out river work as long as it has been assessed and authorised. However Mr. Price decided to crack on with works over 1.5km of river that he knew were not authorised.
As for rivers becoming stagnant swamps, a lot of this can be attributed to silt build-up caused by low flow and land run-off.
Low flow can be attributed to abstraction in some areas and run-off due to (holds-breath!) bad/changing farming practices, cattle poaching etc.
 

onthehoof

Member
Location
Cambs
So thats why lots of business people spent the build up to Christmas with a mop and bucket ! £3m sounds very low for the flood damage, I heard one claim was £1.5m and know that another was 500k. Must have been around 25 businesses affected. The field where Macdonalds is has always been wet. I recall that originally Morrisons over the road was meant to be built on stilts, but the plans were changed as it "wasn't necessary"
The field in question didn't flood regularly and was not part of the functional floodplain, the reason so much property flooded this time was because of the fallen tree causing a dam 300m downstream, the EA claim they inspect the drain twice yearly but the blockage had apparently been there for 18 months, so the EA should be up in court for negligence but of course they have their fall back position of 'permissive powers' so they don't actually have to clear anything.
You are right that the Morrisons was to be built on stilts but they raised the bank protecting the field instead (cheaper option) the McDonald's site didn't raise the bank and that's why they flooded along with may houses the other side of the drain
 
Last edited:

onthehoof

Member
Location
Cambs
We have reached a point where in fact nobody has to clear the drain.
It is an Award watercourse so not Riparian owners, it used to be District Council but they transfered it to the predecessors of the EA, so the EA are responsible for its maintenance but don't actually have to do anything, and yet I have to pay the EA nearly £600/year for Maintainance, meanwhile everyone gets flooded
 
We have reached a point where in fact nobody has to clear the drain.
It is an Award watercourse so not Riparian owners, it used to be District Council but they transfered it to the predecessors of the EA, so the EA are responsible for its maintenance but don't actually have to do anything, meanwhile everyone gets flooded

Or just let landowners do it rotationally, as cheap as they can and be done with it. Loads of farms own diggers and are quite capable of digging out dirt and putting it on the bank.
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
Yes agree blockages need to be removed. Mr. Price was given verbal permission to unblock one river arch and remove the silt build-up immediately upstream from this caused by the blocked arch. No other action was identified during the meeting with the EA and PC. The immediate area is not subject to 'extraordinary' flooding and as another poster has pointed out, the village of Kingsland is an a Zone 1 area (low risk of flooding) so his reasons for doing this are only know to himself.
The EA are more than happy for riparian owners to carry out river work as long as it has been assessed and authorised. However Mr. Price decided to crack on with works over 1.5km of river that he knew were not authorised.
As for rivers becoming stagnant swamps, a lot of this can be attributed to silt build-up caused by low flow and land run-off.
Low flow can be attributed to abstraction in some areas and run-off due to (holds-breath!) bad/changing farming practices, cattle poaching etc.
Having read your post you do have to ask the question why the EA are not carrying out more of the essential works themselves .
Is It lack of money ?Is it because they are scared of confrontation with wildlife groups?Bad management of resources ?Or something else ?
Edit
Still waiting for Vlad or is it a case of he feels helpless to reply.🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
Or to bring some facts into the conversation to counter the opinions that 'Mr. Price is a farmer and therefor must have done the right thing...'

Let's just run over the FACTS again:-

  1. Mr. Price, the EA and Kingsland Parish Council held a joint meeting where it was agreed by all parties that Mr. Price could unblock a river arch and carryout silt removal and bank reporfiling immediately upstream of said river arch
  2. Mr. Price proceeded to carry out bank reprofiling, channel straightening and deepening and removal of bankside vegetation, trees etc. over a length of 1.5km (not 'immediately upstream' as had been agreed). It should be noted that no official permits or agreements were in place to consent these works.
  3. The site is an SSSI (the assumption being that Mr. Price would have known this and therefore been aware of additional permits and agreements required to carry out any works)
  4. Mr. Price was in possession of a tree filing license. The Forestry Commission did not bring a case against him.
  5. Mr. Price used a bulldozer over some lengths of the river which destroyed the river substrate
  6. Mr. Price subsequently carried out more works approximately a year later despite having being issued with a Stop Notice by a Court
  7. Mr. Price was convicted and fined £10,000 in 2007 for unauthorised waterways works
  8. Mr. Price has pleaded guilty to all charges.
Now feel free to pile in with any opinions you like, but the above is a matter of record and cannot be argued against.
Rather thin on facts dont you think. Bare in mind if you really wanted to get to the truth this thread already contains what was minuted by the local council and it does not gloss over item 1. What it does record is authorisation by the EA to carry out the work presumably in the full knowledge that the river was a SSSI and they would already have approval for doing that work. Also the admission by the EA that they expected the Riparian owner of the land to carry out the work (Assume as agent for the EA) and only if the Riparian owner did not have the capability to do the work would the EA carry out the work on his behalf.
 
Having read your post you do have to ask the question why the EA are not carrying out more of the essential works themselves .
Is It lack of money ?Is it because they are scared of confrontation with wildlife groups?Bad management of resources ?Or something else ?

Option C they are all environ-lentalists who don't like noisy diggers and disturbing the beavers?

I don't believe for 1 second abstraction, changing farming practices or cattle drinking from watercourses is the issue. The levels flooded and nothing has changed there in farming terms for decades.
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 33 16.8%
  • Sage

    Votes: 20 10.2%
  • Xero

    Votes: 89 45.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 54 27.6%

Man fined £300 for bonfire-related waste offences

  • 142
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

court-640x360.jpg
A man has pleaded guilty at Newtownards Magistrates’ Court to waste offences relating to a bonfire next to the electrical sub-station on the Circular Road in Newtownards, Co. Down.

Gareth Gill (51) of Abbot’s Walk, Newtownards pleaded guilty to two charges under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, for which he was fined £150 each and ordered to pay a £15 offender’s levy

On June 25, 2018, PSNI officers went to Gill’s yard, where they found a large amount of waste consisting of scrap wood, pallets, carpet and underlay.

Discussion with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officers confirmed the site...
Top