Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    You can Sign up or log in with your Facebook account and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

  • calender payment

    Calendar Paymene

    Delivery Options
    Your NBN Forum Username:

  • If you would like to support the forum, please consider visiting the forum shop, where you can purchase such items as NBN Burgees, Window Stickers, or even a custom Limited Edition Wooden Throttle Control Knob

    Forum Shop

kingfisher666

Sea Level Change, Since 1970...

Recommended Posts

I stand to be corrected here BB but isn't flooding an EA issue rather than a BA one. I appreciate that navigation is just one of the BAs responsibilities but one it is, and I would have thought/hoped that maintaining the clearance under that bridge was part of that responsibility.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there HAS been dredging of the Lower Bure. The question is - has there been enough to have a measurable effect at Potter ?

My guess is no!. 'Environmental impact' studies are requred by the EA before any works can be carried out, and I understand that the BA were told years ago that such work would nort receive approval since they would be consirered to have an adversr impact on water levels upstream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, batrabill said:

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.

But doesn't all their areas of responsibility revolve around the navigation and do all those areas not benefit from a healthy navigation not just boating and given the make up of the broads doesn't that mean adequate dredging is necessary.

As for the BESL model surely that is in reference to surge tides rather than normal conditions.

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I stand to be corrected here BB but isn't flooding an EA issue rather than a BA one. I appreciate that navigation is just one of the BAs responsibilities but one it is, and I would have thought/hoped that maintaining the clearance under that bridge was part of that responsibility.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

As for the BESL model surely that is in reference to surge tides rather than normal conditions.

Dunno. I'd like to know more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you removed the "bump" at the bottom of the Bure, would surge tides, and indeed normal tides, come further upstream? the fact is none probably knows but is that what is wanted? You can hardly put it back?

Is the "benefit" of increased headroom worth it weighed against the increased salinity perhaps affecting the fishing and impacting the delicate balance of freshwater/brackish water ?

Simply because the impact of such action is questionable, all the pro's and against's will never agree and since the actual cost would certainly outweigh the benefits, is it not a risky strategy, given the limited plus points?

I actually want the Upper Thurne left very much as it is - my guess it is very redolent of the Broads as it used to be and in itself is worth preserving - there are few real benefits of changing that IMHO 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, marshman said:

I actually want the Upper Thurne left very much as it is - my guess it is very redolent of the Broads as it used to be and in itself is worth preserving

As it was when? My "wish list" would be that the clearance returned to the state of the 60's or as close as possible. Salhouse Broad is being restored to the 40's shape

10 minutes ago, marshman said:

So if you removed the "bump" at the bottom of the Bure, would surge tides, and indeed normal tides, come further upstream?

Why would they come up further than they used to before that "bump" was there?  and isn't there a much older "bump" by the Ferry inn at Stokesby?

 

11 minutes ago, marshman said:

You can hardly put it back?

I'm sure you could, and probably not at massive cost!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes MM,  - you might want the headroom at Potter restored to 1960 levels but as a result of the actions taken what would the consequences of that be? I would suggest, with respect, that you have not a clue!! As indeed the BA do not and neither do the EA. I can guarantee you they will not take the risk!

And what would be the point in any case?  Spoiling an area of Broadland loved by far more, for its peace and quiet and its diversity of wildlife? There are plenty of ways to enjoy it still, so if you wish to do so, please be my guest - it is open to the public should they chose to go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salinity of the broads has varied a lot after over the years, Hickling broad has effectively been salt several times, in 1953 and before back in the 1930s and many times before that.. each time the sea has broken through at palling or waxham.

Mans intervention has actually reduced the number of times it has gone salt and is changing Nature..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that one of the problems is that a model is restricted in its outcomes by the accuracy of that model, if you have not thought out the parameters fully, then the model will not accurately reflect reality.

There was a similar issue a few years back with climate change models, they did not include the global water currents, for example the gulf stream that keeps the UK warmer than other areas at the same latitude. now it was known that in the past the great atlantic conveyor (a cold current of water at the bottom of the atlantic) had ceased to flow, it it this stream that generates just about every other ocean current, but it was not included in any of the climate modelling - why?

now although the modelling for the broads must be simpler than those models, is there anything that has been overlooked in the models, as until all the factors are correctly in place, no model will be accurate, I mean does the model account for the fact that Morris Mynah washes his socks on a thursday when on his boat, and this creates a side flow of the currents around the pleasure boat, although this may have a negligible effect upon the flow of the rivers, who are we to know what may or may not count and in what way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, marshman said:

Yes MM,  - you might want the headroom at Potter restored to 1960 levels but as a result of the actions taken what would the consequences of that be? I would suggest, with respect, that you have not a clue!! As indeed the BA do not and neither do the EA. I can guarantee you they will not take the risk!

And what would be the point in any case?  Spoiling an area of Broadland loved by far more, for its peace and quiet and its diversity of wildlife? There are plenty of ways to enjoy it still, so if you wish to do so, please be my guest - it is open to the public should they chose to go there.

I have long given up on Potter to me of greater concern is the increase in frequency of flooding at Horning and high water levels at Wroxham both above the flood alleviation works, this can only get worse as we build on more of the natural sponges if the run off cant escape through GY.

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, batrabill said:

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.

I have made this point before but will do so again. Of those people I know personally, or through this forum who are outspoken in their criticism of the Broads Authority none of them have a PERSONAL complaint against it's CEO. In fact many of them respect him as a polite, personable and educated individual and some have posted that on this forum. What they do, quite rightly, is hold him PROFESSIONALLY responsible for the performance of the Authority which he leads and it's failings. 

I wonder sometimes if the Broads Authorty Cheerleaders Society are not creating this so called "personalisation" to detract from the real issue, that the Authority is failing the Navigation and the CEO must take responsibility for that.

With regard to flooding and water levels I have no doubt that excuses are being used by the Authority to avoid proper dredging. Weasel words such as "incomplete model", "inconclusive" and "insufficient evidence" are the salvation of those determined to do nothing, or the bare minimum. On this occasion I'm not buying it. As proper dredging was in place prior to the formation of the BA then information must be available, or at least should be calculable to sufficient extent to allow a proper model to be created. 

As for thie issue of flooding, and whether proper dredging might increase the ingress of salt water surges and flooding upstream of Three Mile House then again, that information is available, simply refer to data from years when proper dredging was inplace. If, as had been suggested there are concerns that flood alleviation work and loss of flood plain might exacerbate flooding then that is an issue that the Environment Agency should address directly. It should not be used as an excuse by the Authority not to dredge properly. 

It's difficult to respond to the statement issued by Dr Packman (based on BESL's Hydrological Model) as it does nothing to answer the questions asked. It's a piece of work that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of. The question is "would dredging the Lower Bure reduce water levels and restore clearance at Potter Heigham bridge". That question is not answered. The model confirms what we all know, that the Lower Bure is silting up and that it is being allowed to do so to prevent salt water ingress and flooding. Dredging work, we learned earlier, has been undertaken but only to allow passage of boats through that area, not to maintain the navigation upstream which may be effected by this constriction. 

The reference to dredging above Three Mile House having little effect on water levels at Potter is, quite simply irrelevant and a smoke screen included to defer proper debate.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be appropriate to remember that navigation is not necessarily the primary objective of the Authority!  Of course the Authority has to dredge ,and it does, but you must not forget its remit elsewhere. This whole issue began over the situation at and above Potter - is there really a good argument to turn it into Disneyworld? Do none of you think it should remain as it is?

If you allowed what some propose then you can guarantee it would impact the wildlife - post after post complains about the lack of wildlife and constantly demand the Broads Authority take action - perhaps this is their cunning riposte! But it is only above the bridge that you can almost guarantee seeing some of the species which make this part of Norfolk so very special.

I don't know the answer to the questions raised regarding the bridge nor the Bure but I can guarantee that neither Natural England nor the EA would give their approval to what is hinted at here - simply because no one knows the impact! I am not a hydrological engineer, and incidentally neither are most other posters, so for what its worth, without the facts, you can hypothesise as much as you like to, I guess, no avail.

Posted on behalf of the Broads Authority Cheerleaders Society - but only when it suits!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, marshman said:

 

If you allowed what some propose then you can guarantee it would impact the wildlife - post after post complains about the lack of wildlife and constantly demand the Broads Authority take action - perhaps this is their cunning riposte! But it is only above the bridge that you can almost guarantee seeing some of the species which make this part of Norfolk so very special.

 

When I have been up there on a day boat I have not noticed any appreciable difference in the wildlife allowing for annual variations to what was there over the previous 10 to 30 years that I used to go through regularly that I think is another red herring, 

 

15 minutes ago, marshman said:

I don't know the answer to the questions raised regarding the bridge nor the Bure but I can guarantee that neither Natural England nor the EA would give their approval to what is hinted at here - simply because no one knows the impact! I am not a hydrological engineer, and incidentally neither are most other posters, so for what its worth, without the facts, you can hypothesise as much as you like to, I guess, no avail.

Posted on behalf of the Broads Authority Cheerleaders Society - but only when it suits!

I agree none of us know but surely the evidence from when it was dredged regularly gives some insight and I am not sure where Natural England come into maintaining the lower Bure ie GY and the EA jurisdiction is in regard to flooding which is becoming more of a problem at Horning and above, if you don't believe that just ask  those with cottages and moorings in Horning about the increased frequency of flooding and generally higher water levels.

Fred

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred - I go to Horning on a very regular basis to and have been doing so many many years and if the flooding to which you refer is that in Ferry Lane, that is a very poor guide. That road is well below river level at the best of times and perhaps you should point a finger at Anglian Water, who, having spent a lot of money  three (2 ?) winters  ago seem to have made it worse! That problem is more to do with the drainage in Lower Street rather than the Lower Bure!!!!

And oh, FYI,  any dredging has I believe to have the approval of Natural England - not my rules!

My comment about wildlife has perhaps been misconstrued - would that wildlife still be around if Hickling looked like Wroxham? Methinks not, or at least to lesser degree I am sure you will agree

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am not referring to the Ferry we all know the story there but various points in the moorings along Lower Street and Richardson`s Yard which floods up to the sheds with ground water at times and I am not saying the flood water is reaching higher but it is happening with far greater frequency, Wroxham Bridge has been around 6`6" all week and the springs are not till next  week.

The waters above Potter were as busy or busier 20 years ago with no detriment to the wildlife than they would ever manage to be now even if most boats could get through.

Fred 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, marshman said:

If you allowed what some propose then you can guarantee it would impact the wildlife - post after post complains about the lack of wildlife and constantly demand the Broads Authority take action - perhaps this is their cunning riposte! But it is only above the bridge that you can almost guarantee seeing some of the species which make this part of Norfolk so very special.

I am afraid I totally disagree with that. Wildlife is protected all over the Broads these days. What about Strumpshaw Fen, or Wheatfen, or the extensive marshes on the Waveney near the WRC? Or the Halvergate marshes, where we can't even  "double" the Acle Straight, because of protected snails? To name but a few. I don't need to go to Hickling to see a Red Kite, a Marsh Harrier or a Bittern. I just need to stand outside the New Inn at Rockland with a pint in my hand and watch them fly over!

If you are suggesting that Hickling would become like Wroxham if we allowed the heaving masses to get under Potter Heigham Bridge, then you show your own lack of faith in the BA as a planning authority. Surely they are there to prevent that sort of thing happening? You also suggest that their hands are tied by other agencies such as Natural England, the EA, and presumably the NSPB, NWT, Uncle Tom Cobbley and All. If so, what are they really there for? Are they an authority on the real Broads, or not?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a bit of a tangent to the dredging debate but specifically about that PH bridge.. surely, despite it's protected status, it is not a particularly difficult civil engineering project to raise the thing? The roads around PH easily allow for a traffic diversion during works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, marshman said:

is there really a good argument to turn it into Disneyworld?

Oh dear Marshman, is your argument really so weak that you have to descend to such a level of exageration? Nobody is suggesting anything more than arresting the continued decline in clearance and perhaps restoring some of that which has been lost in recent years. I appreciate that there is a growing pressure group whose sole aim is to end navigation on the Upper Thurne. I firmly believe that the winter restrictions trying to be imposed are the thin end of a wedge which ends with a chain across the span of Potter Heigham Bridge and no entry signs adorning the stonework.

I wish I could claim any confidence in the Broads Authority to resist such an outcome but I cannot. It is therefore up to boating organistions and communities to voice the opposition. Of the 63 Broads in Norfolk and Suffolk which I can think of only 16 are open to navigation of any kind. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to protect that number, and to expect the Broads Authority to do so. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Paul said:

the Broads Authorty Cheerleaders Society

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly name calling really does undermine any reasoned argument/discussion. Can we please stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but Vaughan you cannot see cranes from the New Inn - not yet at least! (  But to be fair you can not generally see the kites either at Horsey):1_grinning:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, batrabill said:

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. 

But there are always two groups of experts on every topic, those that try to prove a theory and those that try to disprove the same theory depending on which angle they are coming from and who is sponsoring them, that's why we keep getting conflicting advice about everything.

Fred

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the group of experts who have the opposing view here? 

I don’t see one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

But there are always two groups of experts on every topic, those that try to prove a theory and those that try to disprove the same theory depending on which angle they are coming from and who is sponsoring them, that's why we keep getting conflicting advice about everything.

Fred

I can't disagree with that, there will always be at least two sides to a discussion. Unfortunately, spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds to prove that dredging may or may not have the desired effect, just is not going to happen.

Perhaps a halfway (and far cheaper) answer, might be a proper hydrological study of the percieved problem. Though who would carry it out (without bias) and who would actually pay for it, would probably lead to yet more discussion...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app for Android and iOS!

    Get it on Google Play

×

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.