Sandford Principle By The Back Door?

[JanetAnne]

for information....

 

I own a number of old broads cruisers, all wooden and mostly from the 60's. They all used to fit under Potter Bridge week in week out when in the hire fleets yet now we struggle time and time again for clearance.

Whilst I accept we are seeing climate change and possibly rising sea levels(an inch in 50 years so maybe not that relevant here), my question refers to the seemingly total lack of dredging of the lower Bure leading to artificially high water levels on the northern rivers and subsequent loss of access through Potter, Wroxham and on occasions Ludham bridges. Its not a case of buying the wrong boat - these have been on the network for decades!

Yes, I accept that some small amount of work has been done but the torrent of water we experience through Yarmouth twice a day surely must suggest that the water is trying to escape but the flow is restricted.

I've been on the broads for close to 40 years now and the situation is just getting worse and worse.

In the meantime we have a yacht stuck on its mooring at Catfield that we cant get out of the dyke because of running aground. We have just paid for another years toll which, I believe, is for access to the whole network not just Catfield Dyke?

I seriously wonder whether navigation is a priority still?

Dear JanetAnne,

In the last 3 years the BA has dredged over 70,000m3 from the river Bure, however the modelling that we carried out as part of the Sediment Management Strategy showed that dredging has minimal impact on water levels.

In fact, the Bure Loop acts a throttle in the system and restricts the flow of water heading upstream from Great Yarmouth which is why the waterway specification was restricted by agreement with Natural England to reduce the potential for saline incursion.

Generally speaking, water levels are more influenced by atmospheric conditions and rainfall in headwaters and there is good evidence from the bridge pilot records at Potter Heigham that water levels have increased over the last 30 years.

We have also spent a lot of time, energy and money in agreeing a vision for Hickling which is allowing us to carry out dredging on this very sensitive site, and will include Catfield Dyke in a later phase.

Regards

John (Packman)

Now what the above tells me is that the water levels, according to the "bridge pilots records" on the Thurne have increased over the last 30 years.

Two points..

1- I can find absolutely no evidence that rainfall has increased. I've been through the met office archives but whilst there are peaks and troughs the yearly average remains about the same. If its down to the peaks and troughs why is the water not lower at times?

2- If the water levels are being kept artificially high to protect the upper Bure and associated areas from saline contamination that would suggest that the actual water depth on Hickling is artificially high as well. Maybe we do need to stop dredging because should the rivers ever get back to their proper flows Hickling will be high and dry!

Use it while you can people!

[Vaughan]

Thank you for posting that Janet-Anne, and it bears out, sadly, what I have just posted myself.

The Bure Loop?? that's a new one on me, and saline incursion has been a normal part of the (tidal) rivers of the Broads ever since the Romans!

16 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

Generally speaking, water levels are more influenced by atmospheric conditions and rainfall in headwaters and there is good evidence from the bridge pilot records at Potter Heigham that water levels have increased over the last 30 years.

This is just in-excusable Yuppy-Speak.

There are no headwaters at Hickling. It used to go out to sea at Horsey! Hickling is tidal, and the only "throttle" is Potter Bridge itself.

Have a look at my last post, and this just bears out my case.

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, I have no doubt that you are a well intended individual but I often wonder at your attempts to devalue valid criticisms of the Broads Authority.

There can be little or no doubt that all is not as it should be within the hallowed walls of Packman Towers, a fact that has recently been highlighted by James Knight in his blog. I suggest that you re-read it, remembering as you do so, that the BA is not a commercial enterprise, that its members are there to represent us rather than to simply cow-tow to the whims of a delusional control freak.

[Viking23]

As recently as three years ago we could cruise all over Hickling, there was an area of black silt in the north west area, which we knew to avoid.

We cruised every nook and cranny, with the exception of private areas. Occasionally we had to tilt the outboard by 5" but we got by.

However, 18 months ago we tried the same area, and grounded, and no amount of tilting the engine helped, on our viking 23, the minimum draught is set by a keel, whereby we draw between 14-16" of water. with lots of weed cutting, by our prop, we managed to reverse back.

We have a depth sounder, however the sender is transom mounted, so often we run aground with our prop still in adequate depth water.

There is a bit of a catch 22 situation here, if there is enough bridge clearance for hire craft to get through, then there is inadequate water depth outside the marked channel. We have seen day boats run aground, we tried to get close to one to help, but we were running aground ourselves, well before we got close. 

Weeds thrive in clear shallow water, and for us, if we see weeds on the water surface, then this is, to us an indication of shallow water, and we avoid it.

We talk about Hickling, but Horsey mere is also having the same problem, we used to be able to cruise around the perimeter of the broad, brushing close to the reeds, not anymore, we stay clear at least 50 metres, or more if we see weeds breaking the surface.

Just before Horsey Staithe entrance, there was a small expanse of water on the left, this was no longer navigable to us on our last visit.

Sometimes, I feel like putting a bumper sticker on the stern, "Don't follow me, as you'll get stuck" 

Due to illness, we haven't used the boat in the last 18 months, apart from a few boat checks, but every year till then, we took a three week break and visited every square inch of the broads, including all heads of navigation, and the only time we had to tilt the engine was on Hickling broad and Horsey mere. I just wonder, if we managed to cruise this area later this season, just what we will find up there. 

Silt build up is a natural process, and happens even in closed systems, our pond at home demonstrates that, weed dies back in the winter, and this forms a thick soup, which is easily dispersed around the whole broad, wave action, tidal rise and fall, boats, ducks, and even fish disturb the sediment, and it settles at the deepest points. 

Richard

[Poppy]

10 hours ago, JanetAnne said:

for information....

 

I own a number of old broads cruisers, all wooden and mostly from the 60's. They all used to fit under Potter Bridge week in week out when in the hire fleets yet now we struggle time and time again for clearance.

Whilst I accept we are seeing climate change and possibly rising sea levels(an inch in 50 years so maybe not that relevant here), my question refers to the seemingly total lack of dredging of the lower Bure leading to artificially high water levels on the northern rivers and subsequent loss of access through Potter, Wroxham and on occasions Ludham bridges. Its not a case of buying the wrong boat - these have been on the network for decades!

Yes, I accept that some small amount of work has been done but the torrent of water we experience through Yarmouth twice a day surely must suggest that the water is trying to escape but the flow is restricted.

I've been on the broads for close to 40 years now and the situation is just getting worse and worse.

In the meantime we have a yacht stuck on its mooring at Catfield that we cant get out of the dyke because of running aground. We have just paid for another years toll which, I believe, is for access to the whole network not just Catfield Dyke?

I seriously wonder whether navigation is a priority still?

Dear JanetAnne,

In the last 3 years the BA has dredged over 70,000m3 from the river Bure, however the modelling that we carried out as part of the Sediment Management Strategy showed that dredging has minimal impact on water levels.

In fact, the Bure Loop acts a throttle in the system and restricts the flow of water heading upstream from Great Yarmouth which is why the waterway specification was restricted by agreement with Natural England to reduce the potential for saline incursion.

Generally speaking, water levels are more influenced by atmospheric conditions and rainfall in headwaters and there is good evidence from the bridge pilot records at Potter Heigham that water levels have increased over the last 30 years.

We have also spent a lot of time, energy and money in agreeing a vision for Hickling which is allowing us to carry out dredging on this very sensitive site, and will include Catfield Dyke in a later phase.

Regards

John (Packman)

Now what the above tells me is that the water levels, according to the "bridge pilots records" on the Thurne have increased over the last 30 years.

Two points..

1- I can find absolutely no evidence that rainfall has increased. I've been through the met office archives but whilst there are peaks and troughs the yearly average remains about the same. If its down to the peaks and troughs why is the water not lower at times?

2- If the water levels are being kept artificially high to protect the upper Bure and associated areas from saline contamination that would suggest that the actual water depth on Hickling is artificially high as well. Maybe we do need to stop dredging because should the rivers ever get back to their proper flows Hickling will be high and dry!

Use it while you can people!

How interesting that JP is now accepting the fact that silting in the Lower Bure is causing problems ! 

Some 17 - 18 years ago, in the course of a conversation with someone who was well placed to know such things, he told me that English Nature (the predecessor to Natural England) said that no dredging of the Lower Bure would be approved by them, since this would lead to a drop in water levels  - and this would be regarded as an 'adverse environmental impact',  and that the BA should not waste any money on the legally required pre work environmental impact study.

There is a lot wrong with the Broads Authority, but the unelected QANGO that is Natural England should be highlighted for its undemocratic actions which fly in the face of the law in such cases as this!

[JennyMorgan]

Regretfully the Authority & English Nature are as thick as thieves. 

Equally regrettable is the tendency of the Authority to gleefully seek out excuses for NOT doing the job in hand rather than seeking the means to do what is legally required of them.  

Constantly we are told that European Directives require the BA to not do this or not do that, thankfully we are coming out of the Union.

Spin, ho ho, laughable! Doctor John gleefully tells us that the Authority has gained consent to dredge the marked channel across Hickling and it appears that he is welcoming this unacceptable situation. Unacceptable because that leaves a vast majority of the Broad undredged.

Shallow water equates to weed growth. Weed growth equates to exclusion. Conservation by exclusion.

Certain people have constantly poo-pooed the idea that Hickling, as a navigation, is under threat. Perhaps now they will wake up and smell the coffee. 

The Authority depends on tolls revenue to a very large extent yet it constantly seeks excuses that 'allow' it to stab us in the back. 

Can we trust the Authority to meet its legislative duties, to fight our corner?

No.

[Baitrunner]

So, it was mentioned in an earlier post about a petition. I have no idea how to set one of these up, but it anyone does I would happily sign it.

I think it needs to capture the wider rights to navigation on both North and South and include swing/opening bridges as well as dredging. That way you might capture some signatures from the Brundall navy etc. None of those can get North so make them feel the love, don't exclude them.

I don't know if people would do it, but if the petition could capture names, boat names and Broads toll reg number you start to get a powerful message across. With names and boat names you don't then need addresses as the BA already hold this information if they want to cross check or challenge it's validity.

There might be interest from the Southern marinas as well because if the bridge problems continue every year some boats may start to leave (as have a few already) which will reduce their revenue.

[BroadScot]

A strong investigative journalist is what is required to show these so called big wigs that there is more than one way to skin a cat...or dredge a broad ! Panorama comes to mind !

Iain

[grendel]

is there not an exemption from the toll for boats moored off the navigable areas, if through non dredging a boat is confined off the navigation by lack of water depth to navigate out, then surely it should be exempt from paying the toll, I am sure a judge would look on that favourably if the BA were to try and prosecute for non payment of toll.

[Baitrunner]

Who has the deepest pockets? BA or JA?

[marshman]

Hi Vaughan - whilst I applaud your statement on staithes and agree quite a lot of what you say, my bet is that few of us have pockets deep enough to pursue this through the courts! Keith Bacon is a bit of an expert on staithes and I am not sure he would quite agree with you!! However the situation is appalling and a classic example is at Ludham which has an old staithe down Staithe Road which seems now part of someones garden!! There were many staithes, some private, some public and which were which, are frequently lost in the mists of time!!

But who is to fund these test of English law, and I promise you it is fiendishly complicated, and not quite that straightforward. Neither I guess is  pursuing the purported navigation rights. There are many long lost staithes all over and all record is sadly disappearing.

[JennyMorgan]

On that, Marsh, I entirely agree.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, BroadScot said:

A strong investigative journalist is what is required to show these so called big wigs that there is more than one way to skin a cat...or dredge a broad ! Panorama comes to mind !

Iain

This tack has been tried, unfortunately it is seen by the wider media as a local issue and not one that will be of much interest outside of the parish, so to speak. However, perhaps Private Eye might take it on. The shenanigans within the upper reaches of Packman Towers must surely be right up their street! 

[Vaughan]

53 minutes ago, marshman said:

But who is to fund these test of English law, and I promise you it is fiendishly complicated, and not quite that straightforward. Neither I guess is  pursuing the purported navigation rights. There are many long lost staithes all over and all record is sadly disappearing.

I have no wish to argue this "toss" with you, except to say that when I served alongside Roy Kemp on the committee of the Broads Society we were successful in forcing the re-opening of many old staithes on the Broads, many of which you now take for granted but would not still be accessible, without our efforts in those days. It wasn't "fiendishly complicated" and it did not require "funding". Just application, and a bit of work.

I consider that I "did my bit" for the Broads in those days, for very practical reasons. If you are now prepared to let the whole thing slide, because an un-elected Quango "says so" then that has to be up to you.

Let us hope that there are still those on the Broads, such as James Knight, who are prepared to stand up for the place that they love.

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Regarding staithes in my opinion Roy Kemp and Keith Bacon are two very different animals. Perhaps the same can be said of the Society of then and also of today. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

On 04/08/2016 at 9:10 AM, JanetAnne said:

As you know, we have a sailing boat in Catfield Dyke which we can't get out due to shallow water. Two seasons now it's been stuck there, we can't use it and we can't sell it because the new owners would have the same problem.

But not to worry BA are "aware of the issue" and will review it in the future. 

I`d flatly REFUSE to pay the toll until they open the waterway so you can get what you will then, and ONLY then pay for. It`s time to get tough on the BA, and you can only do that by witholding toll money.

 

I said many many months ago the BA`s plan was to allow all the rivers above the bridges to become overgrown, resulting in the BA "simply not being able to do anything about it for wildlife reason etc", and i got ridiculed for it. Well now who`s going to say "i told you so"?. It`s starting...................

[Poppy]

11 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

I`d flatly REFUSE to pay the toll until they open the waterway so you can get what you will then, and ONLY then pay for. It`s time to get tough on the BA, and you can only do that by witholding toll money.

 

I said many many months ago the BA`s plan was to allow all the rivers above the bridges to become overgrown, resulting in the BA "simply not being able to do anything about it for wildlife reason etc", and i got ridiculed for it. Well now who`s going to say "i told you so"?. It`s starting...................

I agree.  My judgement is that they will be unwilling to 'wash dirty linen ' in public through the courts on a matter such as this, since it would undoubtedly attract the attention of the press/ media.  They will either do nothing - or dredge the dyke!

[JennyMorgan]

I was told by Doctor John, several years ago, that boaters and anglers would have to accept being barred from various sensitive areas of waterway. The usual nit pickers refused point blank to accept my comment as fact. This latest, yet another saga in that of Hickling, must surely now penetrate the thickest of craniums. That the bloke appears to be pleased that the BA can only dredge a fraction of the Broad must surely speak volumes.

That they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into dredging Heigham Sound should have sounded the alarm bells years ago. Hickling, a haven for waders, a memory for boats, the writing is surely on the wall for those who care to open their eyes. 

Like Speedtriple I have banged this drum before so he is not alone. 

I'd have more respect for the Authority if they were to be open and honest about this one. Having squandered millions, easy to substantiate, I suppose they'll, once again, demand a tolls rise but reality is reality, the present Broads Act requires them to dredge, even where they don't want to.

Broads Squit/Sheet regularly praises itself to the rafters in regard to dredging, but either the Authority is fighting a loosing battle or it is relying on strategic neglect to achieve its undeclared but obvious agenda. 

[Timbo]

I've just read the links provided by Bobthedog on Heigham Holmes. According to both sources the National Trust is involved in 'reinstating' water levels on the Holmes to generate water meadow. Would this have something to do with rising water levels in the area which are not reflected in precipitation records?

[marshman]

Hi Timbo - why dont you ask them?

My guess is that it has absolutely nothing to do as you suggest but the change to wetter marsh just as they have done on the other side of the river at Candle Dyke. That process can be seen now if you walk down to the Eel Sett and you will see that raising the water level has made a much wetter marsh!! Over the years the deepening of ditches by farmers had led to a general lowering of the water levels so the marshes were below river level.

The exactly same issue has been addressed throughout Upton Marshes and South Walsham Marshes.

[Timbo]

5 minutes ago, marshman said:

Hi Timbo - why dont you ask them?

My guess is that it has absolutely nothing to do as you suggest but the change to wetter marsh just as they have done on the other side of the river at Candle Dyke. That process can be seen now if you walk down to the Eel Sett and you will see that raising the water level has made a much wetter marsh!! Over the years the deepening of ditches by farmers had led to a general lowering of the water levels so the marshes were below river level.

The exactly same issue has been addressed throughout Upton Marshes and South Walsham Marshes.

My bad Marshman, one of the drawbacks to retirement, I'm too used to having postgrads available to do the research for me while I went to the pub formulated the hypothesis. Thirsty work all that thinking I'll have you know.

Still, it has piqued my interest. Time to start pulling a few maps and put a call into the NT.

[Vaughan]

Thank goodness, in the late 70s, we managed to block the great ideas to build a flood barrier across the Yarmouth Haven.

Just think what a toy that would have been for all these experts to mess about with ancient water levels!

Marshman rightly identifies the blot on the landscape which was deep-dyke digging for arable farming, from which what were some of the most beautiful parts of Broadland have not yet fully recovered.

[Poppy]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Thank goodness, in the late 70s, we managed to block the great ideas to build a flood barrier across the Yarmouth Haven.

Just think what a toy that would have been for all these experts to mess about with ancient water levels!

Marshman rightly identifies the blot on the landscape which was deep-dyke digging for arable farming, from which what were some of the most beautiful parts of Broadland have not yet fully recovered.

Not sure I can agree with that Vaughan. The obstruction of so much of the traditional Broadland vistas from the rivers has been a result of the alternative which came in its place - the Broadland Flood alleviation Scheme http://www.bfap.org/

This in itself has led directly to the loss of many, many casual moorings, and far from protecting Broadland properties from flooding, it has led to increased risks to places on the riverside like Horning, Brundall etc.

It is not fluvial flooding which caused the problems but tidal surges, which a G.Yarmouth barrier would have prevented. Indeed, it would not have been available to 'these experts',since it would be a barrier to navigation above The Haven when in use - similar to the Thames Barrier, and would only have been raised in times of threat.

Let's not forget, it was the conservationists who objected so strongly to such a scheme  - their preferred option was to open the flood walls on Haddiscoe Island. Perfect for waders according to the RSPB!

[Timbo]

Whoa! Not even lunchtime on a Sunday and a phone call to a former colleague, now working with the English Heritage, got me an 'earholing', a very long reading list and cost me a dinner! Ah well.

It seems water meadows do indeed lift the water table and the height of rivers. They produce large quantities of silt if operated correctly. Water management of both sluices and ditches in the meadow and of the neighboring river are essential this includes regular dredging to avoid silting up of channels downstream of the meadow and the removal of reed beds. 

Apparently there is some controversy if not a little anger in the weird world of water meadows. Restoration of water meadows is done in the name of 'heritage' and under the cover all of 'benefitting wildlife'. However the 'spuggie worriers' are loath to operate the water meadows correctly as this, as I already mentioned, means the removal of reed beds. To add to the mess nature conservationists can't seem to get it through their heads that water meadows do not contain standing water and water should not be left to lay in the meadows no matter what the current state of the wading bird population.

The current feeling amongst the heritage faction is that it was a mistake to use the umbrella of nature conservation as conservations fail to see the four legged horned beastie that is the end product in the equation.

Seems I have some more reading to do!

[marshman]

Have they closed that gap onto Halvergate then??

 What is truly a nonsense though is the continued drainage and use of old marshland for arable farming - Heigham Holmes for example. That whole area is surrounded by marshland and it was a real real shame that farmers actually got rewarded for ploughing up marshes and water meadows. Surely the object of the old water meadows/marshes WAS to provide an overflow for the high tides. Totally ridiculous to put it down to wheat/barley and potatoes - it should have been left as summer grazing like it traditionally was and we would not then have the problem of deep cut dykes drying out the peat based soils - never too late to reverse this and that is slowly being done. Thank goodness!  Looking at Horsey/ Hickling, half the problem remains drainage off the Brograve Levels - it is slow reversing trends like that. 

I am sure you are right Poppy - well you must be!! - but the advantages of BFAP cannot yet be assessed. You clearly have weighed up the advantages of having water pouring through the old "banks" straight into the IDB drains only to be pumped back into the flooding river and is the flooding really worse in Horning?? Not sure I am aware of that!  But surge tides are a problem - is that not in part due to land sinking and tides rising or did I imagine that? Certainly they are encroaching , slowly, upstream. Perhaps having more marshes would help?