batrabill

It was my impression that lots of people were agreeing with everything.James Kmights said?

I’ve read the blog a couple of times now and I think there is much that is sensible and good. However, I think these are the main points 1. The BA should lose planning responsibility and it should go back to local authorities Maybe, but that means there is no consistency across the Broads area. This is a possible source of future conflict and one that should be carefully considered 2. The BA should be an elected body Sorry, but this is never going to happen There is no clear constituency - and never will be This is the weakest part 3. The rivers should return to a Harbour Aurhority So what remains? This new elected body is in charge of what? The moorings? DEFRA will fine the National Park Grant of £3 million to a body that mows a few moorings and patrols??? This last suggestion doesnt chime with the others Only 1 is workable I think this is a proposal to get rid of the BA. But when do Governments dismantle something that works fine for something much more complicated???

For the first time??? After all the warnings that have been posted here, now you are worried??? Or, to put it another way, nothing has changed, the rivers are still beautiful, there are plentiful moorings and all the hire boats are hidden away.

I think you have to accept that john Packman’s plan is so cunning and so secret he doesn’t even understand it himself.

Re-framing to balance a quite deliberate spin.

Let’s call a spade a spade. What JM does incredibly successfully is what phsychologists call ‘framing’. By representing the debate in the most extreme terms the debate is framed about how wicked JP is. This phrase being debated seems fairly innocuous to me, but now the debate is all about closing the navigation for hidden reasons. As young people would say what the flip? This is paranoia based on mischief making. My personal concern is about the composition of the authority. I think that is worth worrying about. James Knight has made himself as unpopular as he can be so it’s hard to have much sympathy. But the composition of the authority is concerning. However, it does not mean that the authority is plotting the end of boating. That is loony tunes.

As it says above, that is just dredging on the lower Bure..... which is what we are discussing.

Are you claiming the BA does no dredging? 2018/19 – 14,000m3 removed from Lower Bure 2017/18 – 5,000m3 Bure Loop 2017/18 – 5,820m3 removed from lower Bure 2015/16 – 12,500m3 removed from Bure at Stokesby. 

Really unnecessary. This doesn’t need to be an adversarial debate. No one doubts that the river system is different to how it was in the past. The debate is over the consequence of 1) much dredging at Bure mouth and 2) much more dredging of the entire system. Since 2 is going to cost many millions it isn’t even a possibility. So will more dredging in the Lower Bure have the effect some claim? Ie lowering the average level in the northern system. BESL seem to suggest not. Also, what other consequences will that have. Would running aground at Hickling be an acceptable consequence of lowering the average level at Potter?

Yes, you may be right

To me it looks like Potter and Repps (perhaps not just the bridge but the whole section) are a bottleneck??? It would be lovely if someone who really understands this stuff would contribute. BESL??

Now this is interesting REPPS: https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/station/6217 The Repps area did not see the same profile of drop and rise as Hickling and Acle ACLE: https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/station/6203 So, to very amateur eyes like mine, the level at Potter is more static and not as sensitive to outside effects as Acle below it (perhaps not surprising) but also, (more surprisingly) Hickling above it. Or am I misreading the scales ???

This is what I understand to be true, that a hump at the Bure mouth does hold some water in the system. But it ignores the incoming tide. This is what JP, reporting what BESL said, "In reality, the bed level near to the Bure mouth is raised and currently prevents extra water (saline water) from entering the system at high tide. If the channel were to be dredged from the mouth of the river, flood levels would in fact become worse. Dredging the river further upstream from this point would possibly reduce water levels but by such a small amount that the overall effect would be negligible." The reference to flood levels does confuse things, which is frustrating, because what we are interested in is average levels. I'm hoping to get better info. But, my core point remains, any raising of the river bed works both ways - it reduces the amount of water entering the system on the flood tide. One thing I am certain of, hydrology is a very tricky subject.

Who are the group of experts who have the opposing view here? I don’t see one.

Happy to be branded with this, but I think if you have eyes to see I have tried to get real information about what influences the water level in the Thurne. Perhaps, like Mr Gove, you have had enough of experts, and are much happier with unsupported opinions based on what happened in the past. Unfortunately, this ignores the many changes in the complex system which may render these comparisons moot.

Dunno. I'd like to know more

Flooding affects many things, which is rather my point, this is a complex issue where everything is connected to everything else. I would approve of lowering the water level at Potter by 6" (although every boat I've ever owned goes under now) , but I am not foolish enough to think, 1) its easy or simple, AND 2) anything you do to bring that about will certainly have impact on other aspects, some of them currently unknown.

It's not my job to defend JP. One of the most disappointing things is that the personalisation of debate about the Broads has been so successful. It always comes down to what JP is 'up to'. This serves the needs of a number of people who have a personal agenda against him. The opinion here is from BESL. It would be nice to talk to them directly, not because I don't believe what JP says, but to get it straight from the horses mouth, and drill into what their model says. I do believe it is wrong to believe that dredging the mouth of the Bure will definitely drop the level at Potter, but I also know and I suspect BESL would admit, that no one can be sure, but their model says it won't. MM The BA has a responsibility for many things here in Broadland, boating is one of them. It's quite fair and reasonable that people here who identify themselves as "boaters" defend their needs. But, don't forget that the BA have a wider remit and have to balance different needs.

From JP As promised we have followed up this matter with Broadland Environmental Services Ltd (BESL) and the company’s hydrological model addresses this issue. This is what it says ... "Dredging the River Bure Residents along the River Bure believe that flooding is aggravated by a lack of maintenance of the river channel. They propose that flood levels would be reduced if the river channel was dredged between Bure mouth & Three mile House. In reality, the bed level near to the Bure mouth is raised and currently prevents extra water (saline water) from entering the system at high tide. If the channel were to be dredged from the mouth of the river, flood levels would in fact become worse. Dredging the river further upstream from this point would possibly reduce water levels but by such a small amount that the overall effect would be negligible. Potter Heigham Bridge Anecdotal evidence suggests that flooding in the River Thurne is exacerbated by the presence of Potter Heigham Bridge. This is a listed building, therefore no real solution to the problem can be provided. However, the model has been used to investigate this query. The results of the investigation indicate that the water levels on the River Thurne are governed more by water levels on the River Bure than they are by any structures over the river, as the presence OR not of the bridge makes no difference to peak water levels. Whereas, significantly lowering or raising the River Bure water levels (e.g. through washlands or crest raising) lowers or raises the River Thurne water levels." Hope that helps. Regards John

From John Packman Add To Ignore ListDear batrabill, The lower Bure is a well-known ‘dredging hot spot’ – we get a large amount of deposited sediments on the series of bends between Acle and Marina Quays. We have targeted dredging over the last few years to remove these deposits. 2018/19 – 14,000m3 removed from Lower Bure 2017/18 – 5,000m3 Bure Loop 2017/18 – 5,820m3 removed from lower Bure 2015/16 – 12,500m3 removed from Bure at Stokesby. This focussed dredging has helped bring the Lower Bure up to river specification and removed many deposits which shallowed bends and also we have removed reed encroachments, giving a better line through bends for craft. As far as we know this work has not had any significant effect on water levels at Potter Heigham (or higher at Hickling where the EA monitor water levels). Passage through Potter Heigham (ancient monument) is not just restricted via height of the bridge and water depth, but also width. Water flows at this end of the system are less than the lower Bure, but this is affected by many factors, none of which are dredging related. Broadland Environmental Services Limited (BESL) has done some modelling on this system and from memory the sheer amount of tidal input coming in at Great Yarmouth is one of the biggest factors in holding water further up in the upper reaches of the River Thurne. We will check this understanding and re-post once we have specific information from the BESL model. Regards John

.

There's the rub, if you have evidence that it isn't coincidence then say so, I don't need proof, but if you say there is evidence I will probably believe you, if it is a coincidence then its 'fake news', or 'spin', or 'lies', and the Headline should read, Man Changes Job. Nothing To See!

Don’t think that’s actually true. The pike takes any new event and presents it in the most negative way possible. Frequently off the mark.

It’s winter isn’t it?

I think you may wear that phrase out before you are proved right. Didn’t you last use it about the doomed swimming event?