Danger Concern Over Weed On Hickling

[High6]

No conspiracy theory, Bobdog, merely an observation on powerful competing interests at work. Most people, I imagine, would fully support and appreciate the conservation work but there is a fine line between that and "improvement", which sometimes means artificially creating a new habitat and encouraging species that are non-native or became extinct hundreds of years ago, to the detriment of other participants.

[marshman]

This thread now contains so many inaccuracies posted by individuals who just haven't a clue as to what is happening at Hickling, its almost laughable! As to PW's comment about keeping all Broads clear, since when did that EVER happen?? Perhaps we should consider almost every other stretch of open water that is silted up around the margins - are you really saying that every stretch of apparent open water should be dredged or cleared to a depth of say 1M ?? Not even the Port and Haven Commissioners dreamt that up!!!! In fact what little dredging they DID do on Hickling has resulted in tree growth in two specific areas now covered in birch trees where the spoil was just dumped!! 

I was on the Broad today and despite the alarming article regarding killer weed , IMHO it is no worse than some other years before! As previously there are bad patches but other areas where I suspected weed might be, there was none! As previously!

As for dredging piecemeal, that too is utter garbage and perhaps to those who don't know, I will explain if you care to read although I doubt you will, as it suits those individuals concerned to have yet another pop at the BA attempting to reignite foolish conspiracy theories.

Over the last two years they have dredged the access channel from the upper end of the channel to the Pleasure Boat and immediately outside the sailing club as access was becoming increasingly difficult. Last winter they continued down the channel a bit southward  but a key factor in everything is where to put the spoil - the spoil from the top end was put into the new bunded areas created on the north east corner adjacent to Hill Common where there has been significant erosion and problem with geese for many many years but I suggest  to the people who doubt what they do, just get off their b***s and have a look!

After that,  later last winter they moved to the bottom end of the Broad and began dredging the channel upwards from Deep Go Dyke and the spoil from that dredging was used to infill Churchills Bay again on the North shore but between Catfield Dyke and the sailing club - this has now been filled in and indeed is growing reed as intended.

So is that piecemeal?? No to me it seems planned and this year, if they get permission from the appropriate bodies and to those who cannot be bothered to read I will spell it out again! Thats primarily Natural England - the BA cannot act unilaterally whatever they would wish but they need somewhere to dump the stuff!! Point your finger to the landowners and others who have to agree too.

For those of you who seem to have very short, often conveniently so , memories, the Clearwater Project at Barton took YEARS to plan and accomplish and that was at huge cost then - now it would be significantly more, way way way in excess of the TOTAL annual budget of the BA. Lot of that was EU money and there is now fat chance of them giving us more now!!!

Sorry it is a little too long for some to read but honestly, some of you seem to be posting deliberate misinformation, rather than fact, so  I thought I would add a bit of fact, many clearly wished to overlook!!

[marshman]

Reference Sutton Broad - for what its worth, my recollection is that the channel has changed little in 50 years as evidenced by the OS maps

[Paladin]

20 minutes ago, Bobdog said:

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.

No it doesn't. The three duties of the Authority are:

"(a) conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads;

(b) promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public;

And

(c) protecting the interests of navigation."

Each duty is given the same weight as the others.

The Act goes on to say:

"In  discharging  its  functions,  the  Authority  shall  have  regard  to—

(a) the  national  importance  of  the  Broads  as  an  area  of  natural  beauty and one which affords opportunities for open-air recreation;

(b) the desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads from damage;

and

(c) the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of those who live or work in the Broads."

In relation to areas of ‘natural beauty’, the Act refers to areas of “grazing marsh, fen marsh, reed bed or broad-leaved woodland.” No mention is made of aquatic flora or fauna.

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, Paladin said:

No it doesn't. The three duties of the Authority are:

"(a) conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads;

(b) promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public;

And

(c) protecting the interests of navigation."

Each duty is given the same weight as the others.

The Act goes on to say:

"In  discharging  its  functions,  the  Authority  shall  have  regard  to—

(a) the  national  importance  of  the  Broads  as  an  area  of  natural  beauty and one which affords opportunities for open-air recreation;

(b) the desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads from damage;

and

(c) the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of those who live or work in the Broads."

In relation to areas of ‘natural beauty’, the Act refers to areas of “grazing marsh, fen marsh, reed bed or broad-leaved woodland.” No mention is made of aquatic flora or fauna.

The problem with all that is the one, oft repeated word - natural.

The Broads are not natural - they are Man-made. If they had been left to themselves they would still be a peat bog.

Timbo!! Where are you when I need you?

[JennyMorgan]

Re Marsh's comment about dredging all Broads, the 1988 Broads Act was worded in such a way as to right the wrongs of the past, wrongs that had allowed open waters to be lost for all time. I didn't write that Act but taken literally it clearly requires that the Broads are not allowed to deteriorate to the point of being lost as has happened to Sutton for example. All I'm asking of the Authority is that they at least meet their legislative requirements rather than their fannying around with matters outside of that legislation or the Authority's executive area. Not too much to expect, is it?

[Vaughan]

27 minutes ago, Paladin said:

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

Yes, my own!

In the 50s, as a boy, my good friend Pat Simpson and I would go with his father in a high powered launch from Stalham to Sutton Staithe for lunch. (Remember Basil Hitchen, the landlord?)

Miles (Pat's father) would drive at speed across Sutton Broad and you could clearly see the reeds on either side bending over in waves for several hundred yards in from the channel, almost as if we were in clear water.

Because we were! The reeds at that time were floating free on the water that was under them, and this was before they started to grow down towards the bottom and form what is called fen.

It is happening all the time on the Broads and will continue unless all the various agencies, authorities and Royal Societies wish to do something to contain it.

[ExMemberBobdog]

"the desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads from damage"?  

What is an SSSI if not a 'natural resource'?

[Vaughan]

2 minutes ago, Bobdog said:

What is an SSSI if not a 'natural resource'?

Site of Special Scientific Interest.

That doesn't shout specifically natural, to me.

[JennyMorgan]

Just now, Bobdog said:

"the desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads from damage"?  

What is an SSSI if not a 'natural resource'?

A navigable Broad is just as much a 'natural resource' as an unmanaged carr. If we take any of the major nature reserves on the Broads then we find that all are managed, even SSSI's.

[ExMemberBobdog]

It's designated as an SSSI because of the presence of rare water plants that don't grow anywhere else in the country.  That's pretty natural.  But the rules of an SSSI don't say it is just left, but that it has to be managed.

[marshman]

Vaughan - I bet if you went down Sutton Broad in a high speed boat today you could see a similar effect but not for several hundred yards back either side as I doubt the channel was ever "several hundred yards" wide either side!

But on the ground, it is still like that largely floating - ask the Rangers who regularly have to deal with large hovers which break off every year!! Indeed even by those who know it , that part of Sutton Fen is especially dangerous if you are on "land" - certainly even a few years back when surveys were carried out, it was ALWAYS done by 2 people because of the dangers of going through Sutton Fen and its floating hover. And it is for  precisely that reason, that that piece of fen is so highly regarded as being virtually untouched and almost unique.

[Vaughan]

Isn't this good? Another serious and informed debate between those of us who care passionately about the Norfolk Broads although we look at them according to our own perspective and indeed, our own age.

The problem is that none of us can be sure of how the various quangos, associations and Royal charities that now have control over our heritage, view them through their own rose tinted glasses.

[Timbo]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Timbo!! Where are you when I need you?

At this very moment I am sat by my campfire at Hickling. I have ordnance survey map out of Sutton and I'm pulling the LIDAR information so I can take a look at that channel! 

[Timbo]

A quick look at Sutton and archaeologically speaking, and I stress I'm looking at the information on my phone, but the channel was slightly larger but there were two channels. Sutton and Barton were just one big broad from the looks of this. Quakers will probably have more information. 

[MauriceMynah]

4 hours ago, marshman said:

As for dredging piecemeal, that too is utter garbage

As I was the one to say that the dredging was "piecemeal" I have to say I raised an eyebrow in displeasure at having my comment described as "utter garbage"

You go on to describe the methodology behind the dredging regime, and for my mind, what you describe is a piecemeal operation.

4 hours ago, marshman said:

and perhaps to those who don't know, I will explain if you care to read although I doubt you will, as it suits those individuals concerned to have yet another pop at the BA attempting to reignite foolish conspiracy theories.

Hmmm, I was actually backing the BA in my post and NOT having "yet another pop" at them. I did read the rest of your post irrespective of your 'doubts' though it did leave me wondering if you had actually read mine.

I usually do read your posts MarshMan and it would seem that I hold you in much greater respect than you appear to hold for me, I was certainly not expecting the rebuke you gave.

[High6]

It's designated as an SSSI because of the presence of rare water plants that don't grow anywhere else in the country.  That's pretty natural.  But the rules of an SSSI don't say it is just left, but that it has to be managed.

SSSIs can be of many different types, and each citation comes with its own set of constraints. It might be a historic landscape being left to degrade naturally - if a wall falls down it may not be rebuilt, or a disease must be allowed to take its course. Alternatively it might be land under productive cultivation; if it has traditionally been ploughed north to south it may not be ploughed east to west.

The question is whether the site is being restored, preserved or improved. Interesting to speculate where the Broads fit in. Return to (dry) peat diggings, preserve the status as at what date, or improve to what condition and for who's benefit. None of these outcomes is "natural" insofar as they will require human intervention.

[Wildfuzz]

13 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Timbo!! Where are you when I need you?

Sitting outside his tent on Hickling campsite!!!!!!! No wiFi.

[Timbo]

I took the opportunity to talk to someone who has lived, breathed and worked that area for some considerable time. Gordon at Martham. His reply to my question of dredging was straight forward, clear, precise and yet encompassed an appreciation of the water meadows as well as the navigation.

'It needs dredging from Yarmouth to Hickling, some places build the bank others take it away. Water flows, meadows drain and flood, get under the  bridge.' 

I agree with him, to a point professionally. As stated by someone else Hicklings problem is that there are too many conflicting interests, no compromise and no leadership. 

[Timbo]

3 minutes ago, Wildfuzz said:

Sitting outside his tent on Hickling campsite!!!!!!! No wiFi.

Oh I've got WiFi, just 2%battery left on my phone 

[grendel]

well plug it in man, you need a solar power bank, even Baby BA has one of these that you could charge your phone from in an emergency 

[marshman]

MM - I think you probably know it was a not a rebuke aimed at you specifically but at others who may have used your statements to further other ends!

Ther "utter garbage" comment was not to cover the dredging issue alone but to counter other comments made too, such as "killer weed" etc etc. 

As far as the dredging issue is concerned I was merely pointing out that the BA DO have a plan but like many things that are commented on, issues are often much more complex requiring so many permissions from many different bodies and in addition agreement as to where to dump the stuff they dredge up! The dredging, as I pointed out, was initially confined to the priority bit at top end where access to the Pleasure Boat was increasingly difficult, but now this is completed they intend to dredge from the bottom up which they started last winter, although to expect this to be achieved all the way even this winter, is expecting a lot! 

[smellyloo]

Just as you begin to think one side has persuaded you towards their augument the other side pops up with an equally compelling post.

Long may debates like this continue as it helps educate us all in the complexities of managing a fragile landscape.

 

[Malanka]

Natural England:

We're the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England, helping to protect England’s nature and landscapes for people to enjoy and for the services they provide.

Natural England is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

 

i.e. A quango. These are the numpties who desire and are on record as recommending that the sea defenses protecting the Broads and most of the Norfolk coast not be upgraded / repaired or otherwise improved. Nowhere in Britain is there any land that is not managed to some degree or other. How their position on an SSI nominated area are reconciled with their long term plan of allowing periodic complete inundation by the sea defeats me. Maybe left hand right hand or even oooh which agenda are we following today comrades? The one that benefits our local area or the one the commission instructed us is the way to go? I have zero time for them, an accountable DEFRA department post Brexit would be an ideal replacement. 

 

South Downs, Sommerset Levels anyone??

We don't have to make stuff up their incompetence shines through for all to see.

 

[Poppy]

1 hour ago, Malanka said:

Natural England:

We're the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England, helping to protect England’s nature and landscapes for people to enjoy and for the services they provide.

Natural England is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

 

i.e. A quango. These are the numpties who desire and are on record as recommending that the sea defenses protecting the Broads and most of the Norfolk coast not be upgraded / repaired or otherwise improved. Nowhere in Britain is there any land that is not managed to some degree or other. How their position on an SSI nominated area are reconciled with their long term plan of allowing periodic complete inundation by the sea defeats me. Maybe left hand right hand or even oooh which agenda are we following today comrades? The one that benefits our local area or the one the commission instructed us is the way to go? I have zero time for them, an accountable DEFRA department post Brexit would be an ideal replacement. 

 

South Downs, Sommerset Levels anyone??

We don't have to make stuff up their incompetence shines through for all to see.

 

And rather worryingly, the BA answer to them, and could be described as 'Dr Packman's boss'