Danger Concern Over Weed On Hickling

[Poppy]

9 minutes ago, Minifer said:

 The channel is clear though, maybe the odd margin area has it, but it is pretty much clear for navigation.

 

A number of members of Hickling Broad Sailing Club would take issue with that statement !

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

That's unfair Peter, The BA have been dredging the channel albeit in a somewhat piecemeal fashion for quite a while now. I do wonder if they are obliged to dredge outside the channel which by it's very nature is not the navigation.

I'm sorry, John, but it is entirely fair. There is no legally defined channel for one thing, the Broad itself, under the terms of the Broads Act is navigable. That aside one has to wonder what the true motive is for the piecemeal dredging that has taken place, perhaps it only takes place when that dredging also has conservation value, navigation being a secondary consideration. If that is the case then I have no problems but navigation has to be the primary driver, as required by the Act.  Of course the Authority has to dredge outside the channel, both for navigation and conservation. However, don't forget, the toll pays for the dredging.

[MauriceMynah]

Not crossing swords but I am interested. What do you mean by "legally defined channel"?

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

That aside one has to wonder what the true motive is for the piecemeal dredging that has taken place, perhaps it only takes place when that dredging also has conservation value, navigation being a secondary consideration.

That statement smacks of  "I don't care if they are doing their jobs properly, I'll still have a go at them". It was pretty plain to me that the dredging was a navigation issue. What "conservation value" does dredging have?

When did Hickling broad first have channel marker posts? or to put it another way, when did Hickling broad first need a channel?

[JennyMorgan]

16 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Not crossing swords but I am interested. What do you mean by "legally defined channel"?

That statement smacks of  "I don't care if they are doing their jobs properly, I'll still have a go at them". It was pretty plain to me that the dredging was a navigation issue. What "conservation value" does dredging have?

When did Hickling broad first have channel marker posts? or to put it another way, when did Hickling broad first need a channel?

It is widely accepted that much of Hickling's environmental problem stems from a lack of flow hence the acceptance of strategic dredging. Duck Broad only went ahead when the associated dredging allowed for the recreation of that Broad.

Re the marked channel, that apparently stems from commercial interests, e.g. this way to the boatyards, staithe and pub. Perfectly reasonable. Don't know when, sorry.

No, they are not doing their job properly, Catfield Dyke for example. 

What do I mean by legally defined channel, well, in this case a defined channel that has to be dredged rather than the wider water body that is being ignored. Even now the Authority has to be dragged kicking and screaming into dredging or weed cutting on Hickling. 

If the Authority was doing its job properly then I, and others, wouldn't be complaining.  We have had a dredger parked on Oulton Broad for a month now, hardly getting on with it.

[TheQ]

The problem with just dredging the channel would be the soft mud would promptly flow into the channel, so you either keep dredging the channel or do some dredging in the surrounding area.

Also if they DO NOT EVER dredge outside the channel, the mud will build up until it eventually becomes dry land. Then those weeds of special interest will have no where to go!!

[Minifer]

1 hour ago, Poppy said:

A number of members of Hickling Broad Sailing Club would take issue with that statement !

Maybe I just got lucky!    I accept it is a bad year for it, but I've seen it worse, and you do get these odd years where it goes mental.

 

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, TheQ said:

Also if they DO NOT EVER dredge outside the channel, the mud will build up until it eventually becomes dry land. Then those weeds of special interest will have no where to go!!

What Q describes is the evolution from reed-bed to fen then to carr and then dry land.

This is what happened (and is still happening) to Sutton Broad, which used to be as big as Barton, but is now a narrow channel between the reeds.

This is what will happen inexorably, to all of the northern Broads unless Man takes appropriate measures to stop it!

And to Hell with the lesser bladdered creeping ragwort, or whatever it is.

[Poppy]

'Conservationists' need to be challenged on what precisely they are attempting to 'conserve'.  With respect to the Norfolk Broads we are dealing with a 'post industrial landscape', which was managed to maintain reed, marsh and largely navigable open water.  Present activity seems to be wishing for a different outcome....

[JennyMorgan]

51 minutes ago, Poppy said:

'Conservationists' need to be challenged on what precisely they are attempting to 'conserve'.  With respect to the Norfolk Broads we are dealing with a 'post industrial landscape', which was managed to maintain reed, marsh and largely navigable open water.  Present activity seems to be wishing for a different outcome....

In particular we need to know exactly what Dr Packman wishes to conserve. We also need to know exactly why he wishes the Broads to be a national park. In neither case do we need 'spin', just the truth. The Broads Act is specific in mentioning heritage and for many of us that heritage goes back generations and inevitably includes boating and fishing. In both cases not just in defined channels or approved places.

[JennyMorgan]

One thing that we must be acutely aware of is the thin edge of the wedge syndrome, only we are not so slowly working our way towards the thick end!

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

What Q describes is the evolution from reed-bed to fen then to carr and then dry land.

This is what happened (and is still happening) to Sutton Broad, which used to be as big as Barton, but is now a narrow channel between the reeds.

The attached file shows the state of Sutton Broad from 1905 to the present day. The navigable channel doesn't appear to have changed much over the last 100 years.

[Vaughan]

Thank you, I think your post serves to prove my point. The evolution of fenland from open water does not happen overnight, but it is inevitable, unless Man cares to intervene.

[Poppy]

4 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Thank you, I think your post serves to prove my point. The evolution of fenland from open water does not happen overnight, but it is inevitable, unless Man cares to intervene.

One only has to visit the NWT centre at Ranworth Broad to see this evolution exactly !  

 

[Paladin]

5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Thank you, I think your post serves to prove my point. The evolution of fenland from open water does not happen overnight, but it is inevitable, unless Man cares to intervene.

I don't quite see how I have proved your point. The size of the navigation channel doesn't appear to have changed over the last 100+ years and, as Man does continually intervene, I don't see any prospect of it changing much over the next 100 years.

[Vaughan]

I was referring, of course, to the large area of reed bed and fen to either side, which used to be open water. After all it was originally formed by peat workings. Why else would the maps themselves still call it "Sutton Broad"?

[Poppy]

1 minute ago, Paladin said:

I don't quite see how I have proved your point. The size of the navigation channel doesn't appear to have changed over the last 100+ years and, as Man does continually intervene, I don't see any prospect of it changing much over the next 100 years.

I presume that since none of us will be around in 100 years from now, we needn't concern ourselves.....  Just be reassured that there will be a channel......

[Cheesey]

The trouble is, there is not much of our countryside that is natural.

I think a lot of conservation groups really mean is "Keep it the same way as I've always remember it"

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, Cheesey said:

The trouble is, there is not much of our countryside that is natural.

I think a lot of conservation groups really mean is "Keep it the same way as I've always remember it"

I think that that is quite true, in many instances. However, on the Broads there is very clearly a driving force determined to recreate the Broads as something it probably never has been, and certainly not as people remember it. Thorpe Island and Jenner's Basin is a prime example. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

The attached file shows the state of Sutton Broad from 1905 to the present day. The navigable channel doesn't appear to have changed much over the last 100 years.

The 'navigable channel' may not have changed much, but the area of navigable water certainly has. Thanks for illustrating the point.

[WherryNice]

I always thought it was a bit small for a Broad, now I know why!

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[ChrisB]

I remember sailing on Sutton in my teens so 50+ years ago and there was quite a bit more open water between the reed beds.

[High6]

I understand much of the dredging is connected with building up deposits around the margins and the use of goose-proof netting. I wonder if we should be concerned that these might surreptitiously turn into new fenland encroaching on the previously navigable area. I wonder, too, if the dredging would occur at all if it were not designed to enhance the wildlife reserve.

[ExMemberBobdog]

There is no significant growing weed in the channel across Hickling.  I've been up and down it, sailing and motoring, dozens of times through the summer.  There have been some clumps of floating weed, drifting around due to tide and wind, and probably the result of someone's prop cutting stuff loose from outside the channel.  I've seen the weed harvester working well outside the channel, in the area favoured by the sailing club for racing, several times.

I've sailed and motored through Meadow Dyke to Horsey frequently too, with no problem.  There is weed growth on Horsey, to the left of a line from where you would enter the Mere from the dyke, across to Waxham Cut, the same as there is most years.  I've not been up the cut for quite a while so can't comment on that.

A month or so back the dyke to West Somerton was virtually impassable, and definitely no chance of sailing it successfully, but I was up there earlier this week by motor and a good cut has been done, so I'm thinking of sailing it next week.

I continue to be bemused by the conspiracy theorists. 

[ExMemberBobdog]

8 hours ago, Paladin said:

When two statutes conflict, the general principle is that the latter prevails over the former. Therefore, in my opinion, if the interests of the navigation on Hickling Broad were threatened by the overgrowth of weed, the Broads Authority would be empowered, under the 1988 Act, to carry out such work as might be necessary to protect those interests, without the consent of Natural England.

As I understand it, the SSSI specification for Hickling allows the BA to cut in the protected areas once weed growth across the broad reaches a certain percentage.  It has reached those levels this year, the BA has accordingly asked Natural England for permission to cut and permission has been granted and cuts have been made.

Whilst I agree (and am glad) the 1988 Act protects the interests of navigation, does it not equally impose a duty to conserve the flora and fauna, and does it give precedence to preserving the navigation at the expense of that duty?  I suspect not.

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

The 'navigable channel' may not have changed much, but the area of navigable water certainly has. Thanks for illustrating the point.

What am I missing? The attachment shows the symbol used by OS to indicate marsh, reeds or saltings. Looking at the three OS maps I posted earlier, the area indicated by that symbol has remained the same. So how has anything changed in the last 100 years.

Even going back to medieval times, when the peat was dug out, the 'broad' (marsh and reed area) may only have been less than a metre deep, except for the channel to the village staithe. When test digging was carried out for the recent extension to Sutton Staithe Boat Yard, very little peat was found. Had it been found in any quantity, the work would not have been allowed to go ahead.

Is there any tangible evidence to substantiate the claim that there was a lot more navigable water in Sutton Broad,  in times gone by?