|
Post by av1nbarb3l on Mar 4, 2013 18:59:04 GMT
ok thanks graham
|
|
|
Post by wearyone on Mar 4, 2013 19:39:24 GMT
.the income for the lecy is expected to be over £10,000 per year. stan.. Dream on From the objection the ATr submitted on behalf of Durham City AC for a proposed hydro scheme on the R Wear (country's best sea trout river and 2nd best salmon river after the Tyne (developer's survey found just one notable species (eel) apparently two were recorded in 2004!!!! Full paper at:- www.durhamanglers.co.uk/Freemans%20Reach%20objection.pdf"This type of hydropower is generally regarded as “green” and to have minimal environmental impact. This perception is incorrect as hydropower can have a severe impact on fish, aquatic invertebrates, river morphology and associated habitats. These impacts may be to upstream and downstream migration, direct losses from interaction with the turbines and associated structures, and loss or change of habitat in reaches of river from which water is diverted. The Angling Trust also recognises that run-of-river hydropower schemes such as this will never make more than a tiny contribution to the U.K.’s renewable energy needs. The Department of Energy and Climate Change itself concluded that such hydropower would never contribute more than 0.2% to the current electricity demand. Nevertheless, the Trust understands the desire to develop renewable energy, and the influence of the Government to achieve these ends, but believes that this should be only in conjunction with a strategic assessment of sources of power and their environmental risks. The Trust will support appropriate hydropower developments where it can be clearly demonstrated that they will not cause damage to fish populations or prevent a river reach from achieving Good Ecological Status or Potential as required by the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Hydropower utilises a renewable source of energy and is often described as “sustainable”. However, the fact that these schemes are economically viable only through the use of grants and the long term subsidy of Feed-in Tariffs, then there will be a significant financial burden on the next generation. That, and the potential for significant environmental impact, cannot justify it as sustainable".Take no notice of false promices, just ask the lads who fish the upper Ribble. Consents are broken almost daily and the run of migratory fish has just about ended due to the noise and vibration from the turbines. As for 'consultations' these should have been done with all interested parties invited, riparian owners or not. Fish migrate up and down several miles of river, some the entire length, not just the few 100/1000 or so yards a club might own or control. On rivers such as the Wear, Tyne (and now Ure I'm led to believe) where 'migratory' fish run, every angler/club from he tidal to the headwaters should be 'consulted'
|
|
|
Post by av1nbarb3l on Mar 4, 2013 20:16:21 GMT
there is one thing ive not mentioned cos im not sure what was going on but it struck me as a bit strange at the time most of you will have seen the farmer type bloke who usually walks his dog on the opposite bank at topcliffe along the barbel society strech around tea time most nights well on saturday he clambered down the bank which is quite steep and was looking in the waters edge looking intently for something he did this for about 5-10 mins up and down he stopped at one point waded into the water a little and tried to retrieve something now it may just be my mind running away what with all the press lately about poachers netting rivers anyway just thought id mention it so the new bayliffs whoever they are and us anglers can keep our eyes open for anything sus during the closed season we have geoff who can keep an eye on the fishery while he is barbel oops sorry trout fishing one thing i will say is if we all think oh it wont happen on our river then we will get done over
|
|
|
Post by stanfish on Mar 4, 2013 20:18:51 GMT
hi. now IS the time to have your say thats why graham put the link to the e/a site on this topic.stan..
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 4, 2013 20:53:44 GMT
there is one thing ive not mentioned cos im not sure what was going on but it struck me as a bit strange at the time most of you will have seen the farmer type bloke who usually walks his dog on the opposite bank at topcliffe along the barbel society strech around tea time most nights well on saturday he clambered down the bank which is quite steep and was looking in the waters edge looking intently for something he did this for about 5-10 mins up and down he stopped at one point waded into the water a little and tried to retrieve something now it may just be my mind running away what with all the press lately about poachers netting rivers anyway just thought id mention it so the new bayliffs whoever they are and us anglers can keep our eyes open for anything sus during the closed season Yeehar - I bet he's found my keys ;D ;D Sorry Craig - couldn't resist it , it's that Fearnley bloke rubbing off on me Back to the serious stuff ......
|
|
jason
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by jason on Mar 4, 2013 22:00:13 GMT
Now is not the time for members to have their say Stan.In my opinion that should have happend after you were first approached by Uk Hydro.When were these plans put before the delegates? Why have these plans only come to light now.
Did the trustee's or anyone else seek any independant advice,as to any possible negative effects this system will have on the river and its inhabitants.Please don't tell me the only information you have on the system comes from the ''anglers'' at Uk Hydro.
£10,000 per year in the current financial climate (that figure came from Uk Hydro did it?)is not to be sniffed at.But if the system thingys up the whole of the lower Swale .Then its a pittance.
Jason
|
|
|
Post by johnny on Mar 5, 2013 0:31:25 GMT
Perhaps after the hydro goes in because it will.They can work with the anglers by a restocking program and put something back instead of waving money about.As if there is,nt enough going on with the Rivers now this....................Topcliffe is one great venue and if this ruin,s it then they,ll be more lost members.
|
|
|
Post by endpegger on Mar 5, 2013 8:10:27 GMT
how many of these turbines have been installed across the country???. it may be an idea to contact the clubs who run the waters there to see how it affects the fishing ,then you get it first hand .on the noise and vibration side,i would have thought the water passing over the weir would cause plenty of that on its own not sure how much more this would make . if it does i would reckon you will get way more objection from the local residents than anyone else .lets be honest if you got no money at all from it would you let this go ahead !!! so to me it just boils down to does the money out weigh any negatives .if yes crack on if not dont bother
|
|
|
Post by wearyone on Mar 5, 2013 8:28:42 GMT
Currently there are over 23000 applications (in England & Wales) in the pipe-line, and rising daily
|
|
|
Post by kpkh on Mar 5, 2013 8:38:50 GMT
I think leeds need to tread carefully here. It's ok them saying they will gain financially but that won't go down well with the clubs who have water downstream. This scheme could reduce water flow on the river and will certainly have a negative effect. By the amount of interest Topcliffe gets on this forum it's clear it's one of if not the most popular stretch leeds have. Is it really worth risking ruining that.
|
|
|
Post by jimlad on Mar 5, 2013 9:00:48 GMT
I suggest this is ignored at your peril. I appreciate the financial incentive, but a recent angling trust report identifies the following....
- there is no substantial monitoring of the impact of hydropower developments on the ecology - it creates a natural barrier to fish, increasing the likelihood of predation (trust me it does, the seals at tees barrage have a field day despite fish passes. Those otters and cormorants will have a great time) - it kills fish that pass through turbines - it reduces flow, which in turn prevents the natural flow of sediment and snags
|
|
|
Post by jimlad on Mar 5, 2013 9:01:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimlad on Mar 5, 2013 9:27:56 GMT
I suppose In reality it depends on the size if the proposed scheme. It may make little difference to the weir already there....
|
|
|
Post by stanfish on Mar 5, 2013 9:33:44 GMT
hi guys,its been going on for months now,no secrets its all ways been through committees,then read out at the delegates meeting.we have give it full consideration,taken all advice from the angling trust,and the e/a, who are all for it because it includes a state of the art fish pass that they could never get the funds to do,just one more thing to say ,remember it used to be a mill with a water wheel,so its not the first time hydro power has been used on the site.stan ..
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 5, 2013 9:35:24 GMT
Could someone please clarify : If we own the land as suggested, can we simply change our mind and say sorry, we've changed our mind ! I appreciate a theoretical £10k per year sounds attractive but at what price - selling the the family silver
|
|