Hoveton Great Broad Update

[MauriceMynah]

Thank you Peter for that lengthy post though oddly enough I had this strange feeling of Déjà Vu.

[JennyMorgan]

10 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Thank you Peter for that lengthy post

Happy to meet expectations!

[ChrisB]

I don't want to deflect from this discussion because I am not qualified to comment, except to say that I really struggle, not only with this subject, but many others when monetary statistics are bandied about. 

They state a £100m Broads Angling Industry.

That is  £274,000 per day! Now if we take out the closed season say 90 days it becomes £363,600 per day.

Sorry but that sounds like a lot of money to me to be attributed to angling.

[MauriceMynah]

proof if any were needed that 103% of statistics are exagerated.

[Cheesey69]

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

. . . . 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. 

Luckily enough we have a whistle blowers law to protect these people hiding secrets.

[JennyMorgan]

6 hours ago, ChrisB said:

Sorry but that sounds like a lot of money to me to be attributed to angling.

It does sound a great deal but within that figure will be accommodation and associated costs. 

[Turnoar]

I wonder what the name of the EA will be after this debacle; I can feel a rebranding coming on! Despicable behaviour from a public funded body that is supposed to protect and indeed improve fisheries, not worsen them. Well done to that legal team and looking forward to a favourable outcome on the other points. If the whistler is reading this keep blowing!

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Turnoar said:

I wonder what the name of the EA will be after this debacle; I can feel a rebranding coming on! Despicable behaviour from a public funded body that is supposed to protect and indeed improve fisheries, not worsen them.

The Norwich office of the EA worked hard on their report. They involved local anglers at a practical level and readily presented their findings to local angling clubs and groups including the BASG. Surely then the EA's head-office must have been aware that the information was already out there in the public domain. It was a supremely arrogant EA if they really thought that they could get away with this one. Those responsible deserve all the stick that is surely coming their way. In the meantime I wonder what the lottery funding people will make of this debacle? 

[ChrisB]

12 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

The Norwich office of the EA worked hard on their report. They involved local anglers at a practical level and readily presented their findings to local angling clubs and groups including the BASG. Surely then the EA's head-office must have been aware that the information was already out there in the public domain. It was a supremely arrogant EA if they really thought that they could get away with this one. Those responsible deserve all the stick that is surely coming their way. In the meantime I wonder what the lottery funding people will make of this debacle? 

So who was on the Helm???

 

[JennyMorgan]

5 hours ago, ChrisB said:

So who was on the Helm???

 

For most of them their time there was just a rung on the ladder to something better. 

[BroadAmbition]

Natural England back down over Hoveton fish barrier removals should harm occur to bream spawning areas

After determined action by solicitors at Fish Legal, on behalf of the Angling Trust and the Broads Angling Services Group (BASG), Natural England have accepted a previously disputed permit condition for the controversial fish barriers they are installing at the entrance to Norfolk’s Hoveton Great Broad.

The condition requires Natural England to remove the barriers should harm to fish stocks be detected at this important spawning site for bream and other coarse fish.

This is the second successful challenge by Fish Legal to the decision by the Environment Agency in East Anglia to grant Natural England a permit to block off the major spawning site for fish at Hoveton Great Broad in the northern Norfolk Broads in order to combat turbidity and promote better weed growth. The permit was granted despite formal objections from the Environment Agency’s own fisheries staff backed up by seven years’ worth of fish surveys, studies and tagging costing more than £250,000 of rod licence and taxpayers’ money.

In November 2020, anglers won the first round in their battle to save this important spawning site when the Environment Agency announced that it was 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.”

The previously ‘hidden’ Environment Agency 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.”

Following a second consultation the Environment Agency eventually bowed to pressure from Natural England and granted permission for controversial fish barriers to be installed with a tough condition that Natural England tried to claim was unenforceable. They have now conceded to the condition and compliance will be closely monitored by local angling interests and Environment Agency fisheries staff.

In a letter to both Natural England and the Environment Agency, Fish Legal solicitor Justin Neal clarified the legal position of Condition 9 as follows:

“Natural England had said in their application documents that the condition requiring that the barriers be removed if they cause environmental damage was unenforceable. That was extremely concerning as it would mean the barriers would not be removed even if bream numbers crashed because they had been expelled from their spawning grounds. However, they now say the condition is enforceable

He concluded:

“Therefore, we now hold Natural England and the Environment Agency to this interpretation. If, once the project is undertaken, the Environment Agency determines that significant environmental harm is occurring to fish populations in the River Bure system as a result of the exclusion of fish from Hoveton Great Broad and/or Hudson’s Bay, Natural England will be required to open the gates in the three barriers to allow fish into Hoveton Great Broad and/or Hudson’s Bay.”

The news was welcomed by Kelvin Allen, Chair of the Broads Angling Services Group who said:

“This places the Broads Fishery on a sustainable footing moving forwards and through these legal challenges we have made some significant progress, but much more is needed in the coming months working in partnership.”

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

“Faced with the prospect of further action, Natural England have now conceded that the permit conditions are enforceable and that action can be taken to save fish stocks that are threatened by their hare brained scheme. The Environment Agency, whose fisheries experts opposed these plans from the start, now have to do their job in assessing the project for environmental harm. We will be watching the situation intensely and the moment any problems are identified, the barriers must be opened up to allow fish to enter and complete their spawning cycles.

“I have reminded the Environment Agency that they have a statutory duty to improve and protect fisheries and we will hold them to this. It is good news that Natural England are now severely constrained by these permit conditions and we will ensure that they comply. With BASG a key part of the monitoring process both the Angling Trust and Fish Legal will remain on standby to support them and to intervene again if required.”

[lurcher]

That the EA granted a permit,even after their own fisheries experts formaly opposed it beggars belief.

[rightsaidfred]

Thanks Griff the biggest problem here is that NE the RSPB and the landowners who have a Knight of the Realm and retired High Court judge  at the helm have the financial resources and influence to pretty much do as they like.

Fred

[BroadAmbition]

After 8 years my time has come to leave my membership of the Broads Authority. Sadly, I leave the authority with its fishery in a far worst state than in 2013, with the here and now activities of Natural England threatening to destroy fish in the name of conservation, leading to the loss of our resident fishery specialist Steve Lane from the Agency. Why Natural England want to focus their efforts in such a short term private lake when the wider long term Broads freshwater ecology is threatened so much, astounds me.

Despite these issues, I’ve met some fantastic people during my time with the Authority, which will continue as friends and colleagues, As I leave the Authority I have challenged the planning process and linkages into environmental planning, with the growth of an additional 48,000 homes in and around Norwich. What does this mean for our waterways in terms of abstraction and waste. Its this very planning process that has brought us to this point.

We are currently responding yet again to the Hoveton EA Environment Permit, which we previous had quashed by court order. If anything, the evidence against the project is even stronger. But again, the EA fails to include its own fisheries objection and evidence to the proposal. BASG has already signed further engagement papers for a future Fish Legal challenge if needed.

Despite my departure from BA, I plan to continue as a Director of BASG, as we have many initiatives we want to pursue and deliver to help sustain the Broads Fishery.

Funding just won’t go away as a critical issue, as can be seen with the recent dialogue with moorings at St Bennetts. It all comes down to somebody has to pay, for the facilities and assets that makes the Broads so accessible to enjoy.

I was looking at the history of fishing in the Broads recently and when back in the 1850’s commercial nets men were taking tonnes of Bream from the Bure, anglers lobbied, subscribed and created the Norfolk Fisheries Preservation Association. This group went on to create the Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries Act 1877.

This Association was a success, its principal regulations being enforcing the 1877 Act, through water-bailiffs, with power to act in certain defined districts and localities. The costs of such resultant prosecutions being defrayed out of the funds of the Associations income from anglers.

One has to ask, what’s the difference with this to today’s BASG defending angler’s and fisheries rights and issues like Hoveton I ask. When the modern-day statutory body the EA fails to act, despite having circa £500k of rod licence money to support fisheries across Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. These are questions I will be putting to EA senior management in the coming weeks.

That’s all for now.

Keep Safe

Kelvin

Chairman BASG

[Vaughan]

6 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

I have challenged the planning process and linkages into environmental planning, with the growth of an additional 48,000 homes in and around Norwich. What does this mean for our waterways in terms of abstraction and waste. Its this very planning process that has brought us to this point.

I am not a fisherman but I most certainly agree with this.  A blot on the landscape, would be a perfect description.

This rape of our Norfolk countryside may be "outside the BA's area of authority" but its detrimental effect on the quality of the waterways (including flooding) is most certainly not.

[SteveO]

I am watching with bated breath to see what the unintended consequence of this "bio-manipulation" will be. When you tamper with nature on this scale, there almost always is a price to pay.