|
Post by gcb on Aug 8, 2014 18:30:22 GMT
As craig intimated - any back handers involved?
|
|
|
Post by Eddie on Aug 8, 2014 18:43:51 GMT
Craig, if it's no harm to the fishery, that's good news. The lack of flow over the weir is what worries me and what impact it could possibly have. Geoff or should that be Micheal lol, I don't know what you mean by mmmmm', is that good or bad? To me if the cost of a project, that we will all be paying for, only supplies 45 homes, that's a poor return. But I suppose faraday is the right person to ask!
|
|
|
Post by Eddie on Aug 8, 2014 18:48:23 GMT
I don't think the club would go out of there way to exploit its waters, but it can be good news financially if your water is used in any sort of project eg. Railway,road or even power generation.
|
|
|
Post by gcb on Aug 8, 2014 18:58:47 GMT
Well done eddie - big hero of mine. Guy from a humble home becoming a world shaker and massive impact on our lives today. I don't like to spell everything out but in this case mmmmmm! meant why on earth do we have such an affect on the landscape and wildlife for the sake of power for 45 homes - Bainbridge project anyway!
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 8, 2014 19:20:22 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! As this is stood for much of the year because of poor flows on the Bain it cannot possibly provide power for so many houses.
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 8, 2014 19:28:52 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.
JasonJason I spoke to Stan 3 minutes ago and asked the direct question "is this project going ahead" I struggled to get a direct answer but eventually Stan told me that as 'this matter had been thoroughly debated' 'the delegates approved its moving onto the planning stage'. When I asked'Stan are you going ahead' he said 'Yes if planning is approved, I made my own feelings clear to him as I do not believe this matter has been thoroughly debated, researched nor has the possible impact been considered properly.
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 8, 2014 19:41:51 GMT
The way forward is to lobby the club and your delegates in numbers and tell them what you think. It is not over unless you decide it is. I have known and loved the Lower Swale for twenty eight years and I know it is not as robust as it sometimes appears. Some seasons have been devastated by much smaller impacts than this scheme which is not a flash flood or one off pollution. It will be a constant ever present thorn in our side. The truth is none of us know quite what the impact will be - it may take a generation of barbel to come and go before the truth is known. Who was it that decided this risk was worth taking? The club should not ignore the feeling of its members!
|
|
|
Post by av1nbarb3l on Aug 8, 2014 19:49:14 GMT
you may have got the wrong end of what i was saying geoff what i meant was is the club thinking of using revenue from topcliffe to support other projects and not was an individual gaining from this turbine as that suggests criminal activity Is it possible for members to put this project on hold until its been debated in a better way as it seems this is not the case pros and cons need to be clearly researched and findings put to club members as there seems to be a lot of scare mongering on this subject without proof
|
|
jason
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by jason on Aug 8, 2014 19:56:47 GMT
I would agree with that as being the best way to proceed from this point Duncan.It appears Stan and whoever else have made a decision on this scheme, based it on a purely financial basis.I was under the impassion the club were in a solvent position after the sale of Catterick. So I would urge them to consider any decisions the make, as they could have an adverse impact on the whole of the lower Swale.All this for the sake of what may well be a false promise of potential income.
Jason
|
|
|
Post by gcb on Aug 8, 2014 20:01:10 GMT
It is not illegal to take a handout for giving permission to build a massive Archimedean screw on the flagship length of the swale that every angling society would love town - just morally reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie on Aug 8, 2014 20:05:20 GMT
A couple of points, it's not a done deal. Government funding for such projects ebbs and flows, if that disappears game over. The public will have chance to object, doesn't sound like loads of support out there. What do the members of forum a c think, rushy and myself can make your thoughts clear at delegates meetings. Eddie.
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 8, 2014 20:35:25 GMT
As I understand it Stan presented this scheme to the delegates believing it had merit and the delegates response was that they were happy for it to go forward to the planning stage with the proviso that should anything come to their attention that could prove to be damaging to the fishery they maintained the right to vito the scheme at any point up to and beyond the point of planning approval. I think it would be helpful in the interest of clarity if the Gen Secretary Graham park would confirm that I have the above detail correct.
I also respectfully ask that the delegates might consider the opinion of the Lower Swale regulars collectively to have merit when considering the possible impacts of this scheme as they know the river well.
I have advocated that we all go to our delegates in order to bring influence to bear in this but we also need to consider that at least two thirds of the clubs membership are individual members who are not represented by delegates. This opens up a greater debate about the clubs constitution. However It also indicates that if we want this scheme stopped then we must make our presence felt as individuals democratically on this Forum.
Duncan
|
|
|
Post by rickyg on Aug 8, 2014 21:36:23 GMT
playing devils advocate here,but there has been a hydro on the weir at linton on ouse for a couple of years now, with no detriment to the fishing either above or below it, it has probably even improved.Do we have any evidence it will be a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 8, 2014 22:15:11 GMT
How can you say it has improved over such a short period particularly as the plant was out of action for most of 2012. Its initial construction did cause some quite bad impacts and planning consents and EA conditions were broken at the time. I witnessed this first hand and reported this on one occasion causing the EA to stop the work. I don't believe the Ouse has fished particularly well this season so far.
Any assessment can only made over a longer period of time,by which time it is too late. Sadly the precautionary principle does not exist when considering such applications.
The only merit is perhaps improved access and egress of migratory fish which I would agree there has perhaps been some possible improvement based only on observation.
These schemes are promoted on the basis of the power they purport to generate when all the evidence is to the contrary, indeed the plant on the opposite bank built in the 1930s was shut down because it was not viable. Elsewhere on the continent many of these hydro plants on small and medium size rivers have been decommissioned, many built as late as the 1970s in Scandinavia have been abandoned wholesale. Their real merit is in some convoluted tax advantage and initial financial incentive from the government.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie on Aug 8, 2014 22:32:24 GMT
Basically these schemes don't improve a fishery, at best they don't do any harm. On a green energy basis they achieve next to nothing, they are a political tip of the hat to a green energy policy which our government aren't too interested in really. Would hate to ruin a fishery for such a political reason. On the other point, I don't know that it would be detrimental, I have seen no evidence one way or the other, but I Wouldn't like to chance it! Would like sound evidence that it is harmless before it was considered.
|
|