|
|
Post by rushy on Aug 8, 2014 7:56:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Aug 8, 2014 10:27:27 GMT
The anecdotal evidence I found last year suggests that the archimedean screw generators cause a decline in the fish stocks in the area and they stop migrating fish from moving up stream. The problem it seems is that the generators generate a low pitched hum which the fish avoid.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortia on Aug 8, 2014 11:04:24 GMT
Thanks for the link. As I read it there will be a new channel opened up on the left bank which will take 85% of the current flow over the weir & divert it through the hydro electric screw. Only 3 & a bit cubic meteres per second will then be flowing over the weir in normal conditions.
Cheers
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by mortia on Aug 8, 2014 13:23:14 GMT
Sorry should have read that as the right bank (looking downstream).
Cheers
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 8, 2014 15:06:51 GMT
TOPCLIFFE HYDRO-ELECTRIC PLANT
The proposed hydro-electric plant at Topcliffe is now under consideration by the Planning Department at Harrogate Borough Council.
What is the club’s official position on this? As I understand it the club’s president is in favour, based purely on the offer of an access road and car park the contractors will provide and the‘projected’ income of up to £10,000 per annum – projected of course by the applicants, UK Hydro Power Ltd. If the £10,000 pa came to fruition which I personally doubt, is it the club’s business to make money or to sustain healthy fisheries and therefore healthy membership, which is a worry when you consider the current year book sales? How many more members could be lost if the club’s Swale fisheries declined for any reason? At the moment I believe the clubs financial status is healthy it is the membership numbers that are in decline!
What of the Trustees, Delegates and Members? It is the consensus that ‘The members are the Club’, so what do you the members think?
The lower Swale commences at Topcliffe Weir and to my knowledge from this point the immediate downstream area has been Barbel alley for at least 50 years, maybe much longer. Ref. Tag Barnes writing in P Wheat’s ‘The Fighting Barbel’ (1967). thingy (Richard)Clegg and his brother David used to fish for Barbel at Topcliffe in the sixties. I can offer a number of other examples if necessary. So it has been a very important fishery for a long time, perhaps unique and that is just considering one species.
At a meeting at the club’s headquarters when the scheme was initially proposed, UK Hydro Power Ltd said that there would be no impact on the fishery, indeed there will be no effect at all beyond 50 metres downstream of the installation and when asked by club officials if they (UK Hydro Power Ltd) were willing to put this in writing, they confidently agreed to do so. Did the Club receive this letter?
UK Hydro Power Ltd also said at the above meeting that based on their installations in other parts of the country, this installation would create new features, isn’t that a contradiction - how can change happen without impact?
Could any impact caused or deemed to be caused by the Hydro plant motivate other angling clubs further downstream to judge L & DASA to be responsible for any decline in their fishery?
Topcliffe Weirpool is unique and there will be few of us who love to fish for Barbel and Chub who have not fished there and I suspect want to see it remain as it has always been and not approve anything that may put it at risk. Precaution is never the watchword in these matters, it is only after the fact that real problems show themselves, unless years of assessment take place which has not been the case here.
Was there a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment carried out? If so what were its detailed findings and who or what body conducted this EIA and what was the methodology? In my experience it is not beyond the extremes of possibility for such investigations to be carried out by the company itself, or only done desktop fashion which is quite normal these days. How can you assess an environment without a site visit?
What is the real purpose for the scheme? Throughout the Hydro electric and power supply industries all over Europe it is acknowledged that such schemes on small and medium size rivers are unsustainable and do not produce enough power to cover their running costs, never mind the cost of installation, which via Government incentives ultimately is paid for by us through taxation? This is perhaps the real motivation for companies to build these plants; they certainly do not make a profit.
The Government is vigorously promoting these schemes – they tick a number of the green boxes (not all as they are not sustainable) and they (the Government) provide financial incentives for Hydro companies to set up such plants, this is where the profit is and is the reason why companies like UK Hydro Power Ltd are involved in this business in the first place.
The only such schemes that are proven to work are on large rivers such as the Rhine – much of this information is all there on the internet.
What of those people living close to the installation site, as landowners who will be in part responsible does the club not have to consider them? I am sure the Planning Authority will be considering this as one such plant at Mickley on the River Ure was closed under the environmental protection act 1990 section 80 (noise abatement) because of the intolerable noise it made. Is there a possibility of financial impact on our club as the residents in the flats are very close to the proposed site and this needs to be considered, and what of the effect this has on water-borne creatures in and around the river?
The Environment Agency has never acknowledged ownership of Topcliffe Weir for obvious reasons. As a matter of policy they are in favour of the removal of anything that impedes flow or obstructs upward progress of migratory species. Also the weir’s maintenance and the financial implication thereof are something the EA would want to avoid at all cost. However as landowners either side of the weir what is the position of L&DASA? Where does our riparian land end adjacent to the weir if the weir continues to collapse as it has done for fifteen years to my knowledge?
The Hydro Company does not have a Hydro plant without the weir and it is not inconceivable that they deem the club responsible for its maintenance in the event of reduced flow. Is the club equipped to fight battles such as this?
There are already enough new impacts on our river fisheries these days and we have very little time to object to this. If you feel it may affect the fishery as I do, let ‘your club know’ and influence them to act accordingly.
Duncan Mellors
|
|
|
|
Post by ronny on Aug 8, 2014 15:44:32 GMT
Nicely put mate and some good points there...
So what if the club turned round and said look we don't want this to happen?
Would this be stopped?
Surely all parties should of had an input on this and just seems like its the people at the top who are deciding what there members want?
|
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 8, 2014 16:33:31 GMT
As far as I understand it as LEEDS & D ASA own this land they can withdraw there support for the scheme at any time and if they do so it could not go ahead at this site. Therefore, we decide - we are the club and if enough of us disagree with the scheme going ahead we should instruct our delegates accordingly and withdraw our agreement to have this hydro electric plant on our land. However it has to be now there is very little time.
|
|
trout
Full Member
http://riverfishinguk.proboards.com/
Posts: 127
|
Post by trout on Aug 8, 2014 16:58:05 GMT
None of the mill residents want it either they have turned down the offer of free electric to boot,thats what two of em told me anyway  |
|
|
|
Post by ronny on Aug 8, 2014 17:00:57 GMT
As far as I understand it as LEEDS & D ASA own this land they can withdraw there support for the scheme at any time and if they do so it could not go ahead at this site. Therefore, we decide - we are the club and if enough of us disagree with the scheme going ahead we should instruct our delegates accordingly and withdraw our agreement to have this hydro electric plant on our land. However it has to be now there is very little time. How do you propose we do this? |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie on Aug 8, 2014 17:03:12 GMT
The swale below Topcliffe weir is probably one of the countries finest barbel fisheries and I don't just mean Leeds short length, we all know this.
There's a good reason for this, it's the perfect environment for them.
Leeds members(and other angling associations) need to look long and hard, before allowing something to go ahead that could potentially drastically alter that environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eddie on Aug 8, 2014 17:05:29 GMT
As a green energy project,it doesn't even make any sense anyway!
|
|
trout
Full Member
http://riverfishinguk.proboards.com/
Posts: 127
|
Post by trout on Aug 8, 2014 17:22:49 GMT
I will probably regret saying this but never mind,as a trout fisherman I am on the river earlier than you coarse boys so I see all ya barbel do there love making in and around the island each April sometimes May, so if that thing goes in it looks like it will be chomp chomp chomp to me, no more barbel breading  |
|
|
|
Post by av1nbarb3l on Aug 8, 2014 17:36:22 GMT
Post by av1nbarb3l on 3 minutes ago
I fish toppy quite a lot but not as much this year only had 3 short sessions 15 hours in total and i would be devastated if anything was to ruin it as a fishery as i would the whole of the swale as i think its a magnificent river that we need to protect at all costs, i am however confused about this turbine and am not sure if it will impact on the river my reason for this is 3 years ago i fished the parlor pool on the royalty ( Hampshire Avon ) a river i am totally besotted by and hope to retire somewhere like Fordingbridge ( in my dreams ) anyhow im getting off track my point is the parlor pool is one of the royalty's premier pools and at the head of it is an electricity turbine granted its not the same but it does seem similar from what limited pics ive seen of the one to be installed at toppy so if that one has been ok for the royalty then surely it will be ok for swale.
I would like to think that the club has looked extensively at other projects and taken advice from fishery experts who are independent from electricity companies the angling trust, environment agency and even if anything like this has been put on any other river the angling clubs that run fisheries on such rivers, my worry is that the club seems not too bothered about toppy and at the back of my mind the question is ARE THE CLUB USING TOPCLIFFE AS A CASH COW ? i hope not
|
|
|
|
Post by gcb on Aug 8, 2014 18:17:38 GMT
A 26 ft by 7 ft Archimedean screw was placed in the river at Bainbridge in wensleydale - it provides power for 45 homes ....mmmmm!
|
|
jason
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by jason on Aug 8, 2014 18:27:22 GMT
As far as I understand it as LEEDS & D ASA own this land they can withdraw there support for the scheme at any time and if they do so it could not go ahead at this site. Therefore, we decide - we are the club and if enough of us disagree with the scheme going ahead we should instruct our delegates accordingly and withdraw our agreement to have this hydro electric plant on our land. However it has to be now there is very little time. The problem is Duncan,apparently this matter is now out of the hands of the delegates.This is a direct quote from Stan in a thread where this subject was addressed last March. "its been to the delegates who in there wisdom left it up to the trustees to get on with it,thats what we are doing"
I would like to know what information the trustees are using to make any decisions in this matter.Have they sought advice from any independent sources? As this did not seem the case in the previous thread on the subject.
Jason |
|
