The Environment.

[Elsa TLC]

Im starting off my new thread with this.

BBC News - River will take decades to recover from 'vandalism'

Herefordshire river will take decades to recover from 'vandalism'

An ecologist says it'll take a generation for the River Lugg in Herefordshire to recover from damage done by farmer John Price

www.bbc.co.uk

What a bum hole

 

[Koolpc]

Woof!

 

[blup]

Doubtless he was able to run his business from prison

 

[fillyboy]

Not according to the Daily Mail or The Telegraph.

I've got to say that having read the 'Mail' article, my sympathies lie with the farmer who was carrying out work (maybe a little over zealously) that should have been done by the Environment Agency.
A lot of the flooding we have seen in Cornwall has been due to blockages where the EA have stopped carring out maintenance.
You would think we might have learnt lessons from what happened with the Somerset Flats.

 

[Elsa TLC]

Lesson for me. Don't believe everything the BBC prints

 

[IT Minion]

You don't prevent flooding homes by speeding up flow by farmland. That's how you shift it down river away from your property.

Lesson for you Elsa: Don't trust the mail or telegraph.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

You don't prevent flooding homes by speeding up flow by farmland. That's how you shift it down river away from your property.

Lesson for you Elsa: Don't trust the mail or telegraph.

Rubbish.

Rivers need to flow. Flow can be deliberately reduced where there are floodplains that you're happy to sacrifice. In this case the water was backing up from the bridge into homes upstream of it.

That Mail article is (surprisingly) informative. There are some very good points in it.

The farmer would have learnt decades ago to avoid consulting the government about doing anything. If you do you'll get bogged down in years of meetings and consultant reports that will probably not result in any action.

Environment regulations are basically anti-human. There needs to be a sensible balance. Land always looks stark after groundworks, just look at HS2 to see vastly worse environmental vandalism. But stick some trees in and wait a few years, it will look lovely AND allow the river to flow freely.

We cleared a load of overgrown trees and hedging from around our house, some neighbours grumbled. It did look bare. A few years later, new plants in sensible places are making it all looked settled in again.

 

[IT Minion]

Several examples of that un-cooperative and sometimes unlawful behaviour have been
brought to my attention by the prosecution. In 1998 he piled some rubble against the riverbank claiming it was some sort of flood barrier. He was given a warning and reminded
about his obligations in a SSSI. In August 1999 he removed about 10 tons of gravel from
the river without consent. When challenged by officials and told it was an offence he asked
if they could “forget about it”. In July 2007 he was prosecuted for creating a dam across a
tributary and a sump to extract water to irrigate his potato crop. The dam had the effect of
drying up the river for 1.5 Km downstream with the consequential damage to wildlife. He
was fined by the Magistrates. Whilst this is an old offence, one would have thought it would
have served as a ‘shot across the bows’ to deter him from similar behaviour in the future.

In July 2020 Mr Price was warned about planting crops right up to the riverbank and failing
to observe a buffer zone. The use of heavy agricultural vehicles close to the riverbank
causes damage and degrades it. Fertiliser and pesticides spread on the crops is highly likely
to be washed into the river. His failure to observe the buffer zone can only be explained by
his wish to maximise the size of the crop and increase his profits.

The Environment Agency points out that the overall river level has not been as high
as it was in the recent floods, so it is not surprising that nearby homes have not been flooded
since. In fact, Mr Price’s actions have made matters worse. The channel is deeper, wider
and straighter which increases flow rate and volume as it approaches the road bridge which
still provides a choke point for the water. The riverbanks have been denuded by the removal
of trees and vegetation. It seems to me, that the praise of Mr Price’s remodelling of the river
by some local residents arises out of a total ignorance of the true impact of his actions to
nature and the environment

https://cutcher.co.uk/box/John-Price-Sentencing-Remarks-20.4.23_Redacted.pdf

The telegraph and mail clearly haven't read the sentencing remarks. The bit where he chased an Environment Agency inspector for 12 miles and tried to force him off the road is pretty stark.

 

[IT Minion]

He was clearing the riverbank to increase his growing area. He didn't knew he wasn't allowed to do what he was doing because the EA is toothless, then he pushed it too far and he had to pay for his illegal behaviour.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

One of the locals in the DM article states that one of the archways under the bridge was previously completely blocked. So his work has definitely increased the flow under the bridge.

They don't like that he doesn't respect them.

It sounds like they may have been targeting him. How much into the buffer zone was he? It's not stated.

 

[IT Minion]

One of the locals in the DM article states that one of the archways under the bridge was previously completely blocked. So his work has definitely increased the flow under the bridge.

They don't like that he doesn't respect them.

It sounds like they may have been targeting him. How much into the buffer zone was he? It's not stated.

The entire river was protected, none of what he was doing was ok, he trashed something like 1.5 miles of the river. He knew that.

He's a persistent offender, do you object to the police targeting pickpockets other vandals?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

It's obvious that he ignored the rules. But I'd suggest that ignoring and breaking some rules is probably necessary in the modern world of over-regulation and incompetent bureaucracy, if you're interested in actually getting things done.

He was in the wrong and deserved a day in court. But 12 months in jail was just ridiculous. A few grand in fines together with community service in the form of tree planting in the area and beyond would have been reasonable.

 

[IT Minion]

It's obvious that he ignored the rule

No, he broke the law.

It was expected to cost £700,000 to repair the damage he did. Plus the £600,000 in costs because he didn't plead guilty immediately. This isn't someone digging out a bridge, this was industrial scale destruction of protected natural England.

Costs and restoration are not punishments in their own right. I do not consider him to be of exemplary character having regard to his history with respect to environmental regulations and his dealings with officials.

Remember, he was told to stop and given a formal stop order, then carried on regardless.

I have to say that having regard to Mr Price’s history, I have no confidence that there is a
realistic prospect of rehabilitation. Whilst I accept the force of the other arguments, I feel
compelled to impose an immediate sentence of imprisonment to mark the seriousness of
the impact to the environment in a SSSI and to serve as a deterrent to others.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

The farmer would have learnt decades ago to avoid consulting the government about doing anything. If you do you'll get bogged down in years of meetings and consultant reports that will probably not result in any action.

Seems to be the way these days in nearly all aspects of life.

OT but a while back I was watching a tv prog about folk renovating an old property. They found possible bat activity and did the right thing, stopped the works and informed bats.gov.uk. What then followed was months of largely being able to do nowt, I think it was closer to a year. This was due to reports needing to be written and if I recall correctly needing to wait until a certain time of year so the agency could determine for sure if there was activity.

The end result? The agency confirmed there was no current bat activity, no recent bat activity, and the (nesting?) area most likely hadn't been used for years.

The delay cost the owners not only in time but also financially.

I won't be popular for typing this, however when I read stuff like this part of me thinks 'why didn't you just bash on'.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

It was expected to cost £700,000 to repair the damage he did. Plus the £600,000 in costs because he didn't plead guilty immediately. This isn't someone digging out a bridge, this was industrial scale destruction of protected natural England.

Those figures sound like nonsense. I'm sure they were the figures stated, but I can buy hedgerow plants for £1.50 each. I really don't get why a bunch of people sitting nattering in a room costs £100,000s. The legal system needs a boot up its arse, it's a scam against the people.