|
Post by gcb on Aug 15, 2014 19:25:20 GMT
Which trustees made the decision dave? We are talking about a possibly catastrophic decision here - it's not enough to say well they had good intentions but they did little research about these generators nor did they share whatever they found out with the members. The problem is these guys think they don't need to explain themselves to the membership.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie on Aug 15, 2014 19:50:32 GMT
Geoff I think the crux of the question is why are Leeds so far committed to something without understanding the consequences,the river swale must seem a million miles away from Kippax park, but I know most of the Leeds hierarchy were once upon a time river anglers, as match men that was where the action was. Toppy was always a pleasure venue so low down the pecking order. But times change and Topcliffe probably draws as many members as the match scene. It would be crazy to risk it for the clubs benefit. I stand by the notion that no harm was meant, but with the strength of feeling it would be nice to hear from someone if anything at club level can still be done, what are the clauses in the contract, what is the standpoint of LDASA, are the powers that be still of the same opinion I have seen Mr parks remarks and applaud them, what about others, any change of heart! (I only call him Mr park because he asked me not to, but after his latest posts he deserves the respect!).
|
|
|
Post by memsec on Aug 15, 2014 22:06:46 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. I don't think anyone can *prove* that the screws cause a decline in fish stocks, though there are lots of case studies where salmon populations have suffered after a hydro has started operation eg on the Ribble after Settle hydro opened in 2010. There's an argument that the noise discourages fish from entering the ladder - though the EA determination document giving their permission for a hydro at Topcliffe doesn't appear to give it much weight and there don't appear to have been any definitive studies scientifically proving the argument.
|
|
|
Post by memsec on Aug 15, 2014 22:47:45 GMT
.... it would be nice to hear from someone if anything at club level can still be done, what are the clauses in the contract, what is the standpoint of LDASA, .... A key point of the contract is that UK Hydro can withdraw from the lease on 3 months notice, under certain conditions (eg if they can't build the hydro, or the projects becomes uneconomic to continue) but LDASA cannot withdraw or cancel at any time - it's a done deal. So i can't see any way that LDASA can change their minds about getting into bed with UK Hydro, unless planning permission and possibly appeals are turned down.
|
|
|
Post by gcb on Aug 16, 2014 17:39:32 GMT
How about occupying the weir when the diggers move in
|
|
|
Post by samvimes on Aug 18, 2014 13:02:27 GMT
I'm no longer a Leeds member and I'm not a local resident. To that end I don't expect to have any real say, nor do I have any expectation of anyone taking any notice. However, that isn't going to stop me having my two'pennorth.
I have always seen a certain degree of irony in anglers objecting to such projects. Moaning about man made changes impacting a river when they invariably take place at weirpool sites, man made structures that have impacted the natural river, is a little at odds. Regardless, the river is what it is as it stands. I'm loathe to see any further changes unless they are a life and death thing. I can acknowledge that the impact on the fishery isn't certain, it may have little impact beyond the weirpool itself. However, there's also a chance of it impacting very negatively on the Leeds stretch and those for many miles downstream.
Is that risk really worth the minimal financial return it brings? What if the projected returns don't quite live up to expectations? Will those Leeds committee types making the decisions be able to sleep soundly if those decisions cause a decline in the angling for their own Swale anglers and many, many others further downstream? How much of a return does it actually take to accept the risk?
This is an unusual situation in that it's an angling club proposing the scheme, usually it's resident driven and they don't usually pretend to give a stuff about fishing. As that is the case, will the club be legally liable for the potential destruction of the Swale as a fishery? Is there a chance of other clubs/riparian owners needing to be compensated? If that's a plausible scenario, Leeds are going to need much more income than the scheme could hope to provide. Even if that's not a plausible scenario, Leeds, as a club, could still garner the undying hatred of numerous clubs, syndicates, landowners and individuals.
I know that I couldn't contemplate gambling the future of the entire lower Swale for the relative pittance being talked about. I originally canned my Leeds membership for a couple of reasons, part of which was the sale of Catterick. However, I can accept that, despite it not suiting me, it was done with the best intentions of the membership as a whole. I can't even mildly dislike anyone for that. However, should this scheme go ahead, and should it ruin the lower Swale, I'll reserve the right to think of those involved in the decision with absolute contempt.
|
|
|
Post by memsec on Aug 18, 2014 17:52:40 GMT
This is an unusual situation in that it's an angling club proposing the scheme.... will the club be legally liable for the potential destruction of the Swale as a fishery? Is there a chance of other clubs/riparian owners needing to be compensated? It's actually UK Hydro proposing the scheme. The 'only' role which LDASA has in all this is to lease UK Hydro and its partners access to the river, so that they can get machinery etc in there to build it and get access to the plant once it's up and running, to maintain it. Of course, IF LDASA had *not* entered into that lease, the whole scheme would have been a non-starter and we wouldn't be having this debate
|
|
|
Post by memsec on Aug 20, 2014 16:14:53 GMT
Don't forget the Topcliffe Hydro public meeting tonight - it's at The Angel, 7.30pm till 9
|
|
|
Post by memsec on Aug 21, 2014 6:32:30 GMT
Good meeting last night - very interesting!
|
|
m001
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by m001 on Aug 22, 2014 21:05:43 GMT
The Topcliffe Weir blog has now been updated. topcliffeweir.wordpress.com/There is also a face book page - Topcliffe Weir and for those of you on twitter, follow @topcliffeweir.
|
|
|
Post by gcb on Aug 23, 2014 11:28:43 GMT
Just sent an e-mail to Harrogate mp Andrew Jones explaining my opposition to the hydro scheme. andrew.jones.mp@parliament.uk Let's fill his mail box. Fair play to the guy he does reply to any concerns you have.
|
|