Hoveton Great Broad Update

[Simondo]

You may or may not be aware of the proposed works on the Hoveton Great Broad and how it directly affects fish movement and spawning. There is a new update here for you to digest: -

https://basgonline.org/hoveton-great-broad-update-nov-2019/?fbclid=IwAR10b6p4IFnv1ox3WRUKfHcGPrPAz2xc4-DNP537_4Hd_DgUQOhDr6xHM1Q

 

[marshman]

Interesting that but don't hold your breath thinking that the Blofelds will suddenly start caring about others - its not a characteristic of any of the large landowners in the Broadland area - sadly!!

As far as I am aware and expect, they will continue to hold the view  that "whats mine is mine and not for sharing with the low life" as they have for many years - not sure they will change now although it would be nice to think that they might!!!

[MauriceMynah]

A little harsh Marsh,,, but probably deserved.

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

A little harsh Marsh,,, but probably deserved.

Not entirely deserved, at least one of the big three has shown himself to be fair minded and socially responsible. Indeed he is well respected along the rhond plus he doesn't like JP so he can't be all bad!. 

[marshman]

You must be walking along a different rhond to me then!!!!! Or perhaps their "southern" cousins have a soft streak in them!!!

[JennyMorgan]

9 hours ago, marshman said:

You must be walking along a different rhond to me then!!!!! Or perhaps their "southern" cousins have a soft streak in them!!!

He's won me over, he doesn't like JP!

[Londonlad1985]

I see that this is back on the cards again, despite the science showing that it will decimate bream populations. I can't help but think that if the poor bream had fur or feathers things wouldn't have gotten this far. The Broads Angling Service Group did some great work in showing the impact to the fish and the potential knock on effects, after reading it I can't help but feel this is a ecological disaster that is unfolding as we watch. 

At the the risk of sounding like a cynic or even conspiracy theorist is this just a rich powerful family successfully lobbying for work on thoer broad to be carried out at no cost to them?

[marshman]

I can only assume that the EA think it is best thing to do in the longer term. I am not an ecologist and cannot comment in detail but I am not entirely convinced that the work done by the Angling Group is entirely in the interests of those, other than fishermen!    There is little doubt that fish can upset the natural balance in a Broads ecological cycle - the fish barriers on Barton do show just what can happen if you exclude fish!

Mud pumping is also necessary to deepen the Broad - a shallow Broad does lose a lot of its natural balance and we only hope that the Broad itself will benefit from the action proposed. However, I am not convinced by the plea that it is for a ten year period - I have little regard for the promises of the landed gentry!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

Ecological vandalism, plain and simple. Natural England at it's worst.

[YnysMon]

The link to the article in the original post doesn’t work for me, so all the comments are a bit cryptic without that. What are they planning to do?

[Lulu]

7 minutes ago, YnysMon said:

The link to the article in the original post doesn’t work for me, so all the comments are a bit cryptic without that. What are they planning to do?

Not working for me either

[Londonlad1985]

I think this is the original article, basg have moved their website.

https://basg.online/campaigns/hoveton-gb/

[MauriceMynah]

If people want me to read something, they should paste the text, not some link that can become out-dated.

I no longer open links to certain newspapers including the EDP unless I absolutely have to.

[CambridgeCabby]

5 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

If people want me to read something, they should paste the text, not some link that can become out-dated.

I no longer open links to certain newspapers including the EDP unless I absolutely have to.

Usually by the time the EDP print anything it’s already out of date 

[Ray]

8 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I no longer open links to certain newspapers including the EDP unless I absolutely have to.

But think of the things you have missed!!!

Seagull poops on car

Tide came in

Popular path remains popular

Allegations that chip shop also sold fish

There's a whole world of excitement and intrigue passing you by MM

[MauriceMynah]

True, but those papers run so many adverts that move about, they crash this old laptop.

At least they can now carry the headline "Newspaper crashes old laptop"

[Londonlad1985]

Looks like a bit of a win for the BASG and the Angling Trust.

Taken from BASG website:

https://basg.online/fish-legal-forces-environment-agency-to-back-down-over-hoveton-great-broad-fish-barriers/

" Anglers can today celebrate winning the first round in their battle to save an important bream spawning site in the Norfolk Broads.

The Environment Agency has announced that it is conceding the first of four grounds in a judicial review lodged by Fish Legal. This included “unfair and unlawful public consultation as evidenced by the failure to place relevant information, including the objections from Environment Agency fishery staff, in the public domain.”

Acting on behalf of the Angling Trust and the Broads Angling Services Group, solicitors at Fish Legal last month issued a legal challenge against the decision by the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE) to press ahead with plans to install fish barriers to block off vital spawning grounds in Norfolk’s Hoveton Great Broad.

Top fisheries scientists at the Institute of Fisheries Management, who formally reviewed the project, came to the same conclusions as the EA’s own fisheries experts judging the barriers to be potentially harmful and recommending that they should not proceed.

The previously ‘hidden’ EA Fisheries Team advice stated:

“It follows that the proposed bio-manipulation methodology, involving the installation of fish proof barriers to prevent fish accessing the habitats currently found within HGB [Hoveton Great Broad] carries a high risk of detrimental impacts to the fish populations of both HGB and the Northern Broads system.”

Other grounds in the Judicial Review which are still to be determined include:

Failure to follow obligations under the Water Framework Directive. (The WFD requires getting waterbodies and linked waters to “Good Ecological Status” but failed to take into account the fact that Hoveton Great Broad would go from being a prolific spawning area to having no fish).

The breach of the written assurances from Natural England that it would not go ahead if the Environment Agency’s fisheries specialists considered that there would be a “significant impact on fish”.

Justin Neal, Solicitor at Fish Legal said:

“In July 2020, the EA granted Natural England the permit to put in fish barriers. That was despite calls from the EA Fisheries Team not to do so and investigations by the fisheries team which suggested that the impact on spawning fish would be catastrophic. None of this information was made available to the public during or after the consultation, so it had to be dragged out of the EA afterwards. We were then left with no alternative but to issue a judicial review claim at the High Court.

“The EA has now conceded on the first legal ‘ground’ – that the they had failed in their statutory and common law duties by failing to publicise and properly consult on the application for the permit – and have agreed that the permit application should be ‘remitted’ for ‘redetermination’.

“NE has said that it does not contest the argument that the consultation was flawed, but is defending the other legal grounds. It is likely that the Court will approve an order to ‘quash’ the permit decision.”

Kelvin Allen, Chairman of the Broads Angling Services Group (BASG) said:

“It was very evident that BASG and the public were excluded from available evidence used by the Environment Agency, within the permitting process, which meant the process was flawed. Common sense has prevailed with the EA admission that the permit will be withdrawn. Anglers all too often don’t realise what the role of a governing body like the Angling Trust is. This is a clear demonstration of why anglers need a professional governing body and legal representation. Together, we can make a difference.”

Martin Salter, Head of Policy at the Angling Trust, said:

“Whilst the EA’s concession is good news for fish and fishing in the Norfolk Broads it is also a scandalous waste of public money to see government agencies pursuing such an absurd and environmentally disastrous proposal, particularly when their own Fisheries, Biodiversity and Geomorphology team in East Anglia, who had spent seven years on fish surveys, studies and tagging at a cost of more than £250,000 of rod licence and taxpayers’ money, warned against it.

“These studies showed beyond all doubt that the proposed barriers would be harmful to the recruitment of bream stocks in the Northern Broads. Bream are one of the iconic species upon which the £100 million angling economy of the Norfolk Broads depends and with the support of the courts we are hopeful that we can put an end to this nonsense once and for all.” "

[JennyMorgan]

That is such good news, now for the next step!

Holding back important information from consultations or committee meetings in an effort to promote an agenda is not unique to the Environment agency.  

[floydraser]

Well I don't know much about the breeding habits of fish or the ecology of the Broads but even I can predict there'll be an inquiry into who is responsible for this outrage.

And inline with other inquiries it will be strung out so that we get the results just after the last of the people responsible has topped up their retirement funds and got their bus pass, or snuffed it! 

[JennyMorgan]

5 minutes ago, floydraser said:

. . . . . . even I can predict there'll be an inquiry into who is responsible for this outrage.

. . . . and probably an internal inquiry as too the whistle blower was, someone's career will be hitting the buffers! 

Withholding 'unhelpful' negative information, coupled with the advantageous presentation of carefully selected, positive information deemed as being helpful to the party line, is a practice that is clearly and regretfully alive and well.  The leading of an agenda by the production and manipulation of Officer Reports is nothing new. Good on Fish Legal for highlighting the problem. 

[MauriceMynah]

36 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Withholding 'unhelpful' negative information, coupled with the advantageous presentation of carefully selected, positive information deemed as being helpful to the party line, is a practice that is clearly and regretfully alive and well.  The leading of an agenda by the production and manipulation of Officer Reports is nothing new.

Governments do it, Advertising agents do it, even educated political activists do it.

Let's do it, Let's fall in line!

[JennyMorgan]

21 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Governments do it, Advertising agents do it, even educated political activists do it.

Let's do it, Let's fall in line!

Indeed, however the clever ones don't get caught out!

No question that it has become a fine art, we as toll and tax payers finance the production of these near fictional reports designed to lead what is often personal ambition. Having sat on various committees I was expected to pass judgement and subsequently vote on a proposition. What I needed was unbiased information, the plusses AND the minuses, what I did not appreciate was being led and manipulated. I well remember being told that I was expected to support the 'officers' and to respect the CEO. In my books respect is not a condition of appointment, it has to be earned.  

No, we MUSTN'T all fall in line.

Just a thought, our Maurice is one of the most out of line people I know, or perhaps don't.

[JennyMorgan]

For MM:

Anglers can today celebrate winning the first round in their battle to save an important bream spawning site in the Norfolk Broads.

The Environment Agency has announced that it is conceding the first of four grounds in a judicial review lodged by Fish Legal. This included “unfair and unlawful public consultation as evidenced by the failure to place relevant information, including the objections from Environment Agency fishery staff, in the public domain.”

Acting on behalf of the Angling Trust and the Broads Angling Services Group, solicitors at Fish Legal last month issued a legal challenge against the decision by the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE) to press ahead with plans to install fish barriers to block off vital spawning grounds in Norfolk’s Hoveton Great Broad.

Top fisheries scientists at the Institute of Fisheries Management, who formally reviewed the project, came to the same conclusions as the EA’s own fisheries experts judging the barriers to be potentially harmful and recommending that they should not proceed.

The previously ‘hidden’ EA Fisheries Team advice stated:

“It follows that the proposed bio-manipulation methodology, involving the installation of fish proof barriers to prevent fish accessing the habitats currently found within HGB [Hoveton Great Broad] carries a high risk of detrimental impacts to the fish populations of both HGB and the Northern Broads system.”

Other grounds in the Judicial Review which are still to be determined include:

Failure to follow obligations under the Water Framework Directive. (The WFD requires getting waterbodies and linked waters to “Good Ecological Status” but failed to take into account the fact that Hoveton Great Broad would go from being a prolific spawning area to having no fish).

The breach of the written assurances from Natural England that it would not go ahead if the Environment Agency’s fisheries specialists considered that there would be a “significant impact on fish”.

Justin Neal, Solicitor at Fish Legal said:

“In July 2020, the EA granted Natural England the permit to put in fish barriers. That was despite calls from the EA Fisheries Team not to do so and investigations by the fisheries team which suggested that the impact on spawning fish would be catastrophic. None of this information was made available to the public during or after the consultation, so it had to be dragged out of the EA afterwards. We were then left with no alternative but to issue a judicial review claim at the High Court.

“The EA has now conceded on the first legal ‘ground’ – that the they had failed in their statutory and common law duties by failing to publicise and properly consult on the application for the permit – and have agreed that the permit application should be ‘remitted’ for ‘redetermination’.

“NE has said that it does not contest the argument that the consultation was flawed, but is defending the other legal grounds. It is likely that the Court will approve an order to ‘quash’ the permit decision.”

Kelvin Allen, Chairman of the Broads Angling Services Group (BASG) said:

“It was very evident that BASG and the public were excluded from available evidence used by the Environment Agency, within the permitting process, which meant the process was flawed. Common sense has prevailed with the EA admission that the permit will be withdrawn. Anglers all too often don’t realise what the role of a governing body like the Angling Trust is. This is a clear demonstration of why anglers need a professional governing body and legal representation. Together, we can make a difference.”

Martin Salter, Head of Policy at the Angling Trust, said:

“Whilst the EA’s concession is good news for fish and fishing in the Norfolk Broads it is also a scandalous waste of public money to see government agencies pursuing such an absurd and environmentally disastrous proposal, particularly when their own Fisheries, Biodiversity and Geomorphology team in East Anglia, who had spent seven years on fish surveys, studies and tagging at a cost of more than £250,000 of rod licence and taxpayers’ money, warned against it.

“These studies showed beyond all doubt that the proposed barriers would be harmful to the recruitment of bream stocks in the Northern Broads. Bream are one of the iconic species upon which the £100 million angling economy of the Norfolk Broads depends and with the support of the courts we are hopeful that we can put an end to this nonsense once and for all.”

[JennyMorgan]

On 04/08/2020 at 17:12, MauriceMynah said:

At least they can now carry the headline "Newspaper crashes old laptop"

Or  "Newspaper crashes old brain." 

[SteveO]

Hmmm wherever the "great and the good" have undue influence, and Norfolk is a case in point, there are public servants, paid for by the rest of us, who seem only too willing to collude.