Going Under Potter Heigham

[Wussername]

I do understand your post Karisma and sympathise with your suggestion of resolving this issue. An exciting prospect. Others have suggested removing the bridge completely. 

Wroxham bridge, ticks all the boxes, let's get rid of the thing, in truth a bit of an eye sore.  Ludham Bridge. Not aesthetically pleasing is it. Let's be done with it. Build another one. 

Foundry Bridge, who agreed to that? Bishops Bridge, come on, a bit old, not really suitable for our modern age. Beccles Bridge, who cares, knock it down.

A bridge to far? They are part of where I live. I care, I really do. Norfolk has changed enormously during my lifetime. I fear for it's future. 

Andrew

 

[floydraser]

Now don't shout at me but all this talk of dredging reminded me of what I learned about the river Clyde when I fetched the Owl from Bowling. I found this in an article:

"Until dredging operations, the channels of the upper river at Dumbuck were documented as being very shallow - estimated at less than 1m deep (Clyde Navigation 1871). As a result of dredging work to deepen channels, in 1854, nearly 500 vessels were logged arriving at Glasgow Harbour including vessels of up to 1427 tons (Riddell 1979: 123). Secondary benefits included a reduction in flood risk and the creation of reclaimed land for development."

 

[MargeandParge]

Hi All

We havn't posted much but a question for this thread.

If all the dredging took place and all the humps were removed. "Would it make the salt water surges a lot worse?"

Regards

Marge and Parge

[Smoggy]

10 hours ago, Wussername said:

Norfolk has changed enormously during my lifetime.

Everywhere has changed, the ice has retreated....

Sorry couldn't resist.

[ChrisB]

But you can not escape the fact that water levels have risen. I know because I engage in sport in the south and in the north. Where we once would walk-up in boots and gaiters we now use wellies. Where we used wellies we are in thigh boots or even waiders.

And in one area quite close to Stalham the land drains are no longer effective due to water level rise

[ChrisB]

But you can not escape the fact that water levels have risen. I know because I engage in sport in the south and in the north. Where we once would walk-up in boots and gaiters we now use wellies. Where we used wellies we are in thigh boots or even waiders.

And in one area quite close to Stalham the land drains are no longer effective due to water level rise.

PS. I am talking 15 to 20 years for these changes. It could be the raising of flood defences stopping the use of the natural flood plains so the water goes further up. But wet feet where they were once dry tells me the water is higher.

[marshman]

Water level increase estimated on average at in the region of 3.5mm per annum - so even by my rubbish maths since the BA took over thats around 5". Not sure what the average level at Potter was all those years ago but take 5" away and what do you get? Somewhere near todays level I would guess- with or without that "hump"!

Just one more idea for Griff to knockback with his vast knowledge of the Broadland waterways -  if water continues to drain more quickly from the Bure, as it indeed would, what would happen at Yarmouth if the Yare had remained high - as it can do! Don't forget the Bure would continue to drain as the Yare rises - would this cause flooding in that very vulnerable populated area in Southtown and indeed other vulnerable areas in that well known town. It already overtops at times so where would the excess water go? Perhaps it not just Potter Bridge we should be worrying about!

 

 

 

[CambridgeCabby]

10 hours ago, MargeandParge said:

Hi All

We havn't posted much but a question for this thread.

If all the dredging took place and all the humps were removed. "Would it make the salt water surges a lot worse?"

Regards

Marge and Parge

From what I understand the fact that the waters cannot get back out to sea due to “the hump” and prevailing winds is a major factor in the salt surges and increased water levels the removal of one of these contributing factors ie “the hump” would reduce the overall levels and decrease the salt surges reaches 

[Bernard]

Roughly how far does the salt tide come up the Bure on a normal summer tide?

[marshman]

Don't quite understand that - surely if the "hump" is not there, then the surges cannot be held back by that so called hump, and will move further upstream - incidentally which is already happening gradually! Winter salt water surge tides now get up to the Horning Church area - depends on the level of salinity you are looking at.

[grendel]

i would imagine if salt water gets past the hump to a certain point and the levels remain high, the next incoming tide pushes that salt water further upstream, etc, if that salt water drained out again it would just reach back to the initial point once again, not push the salt water further inland.

[Vaughan]

Could I just remind this discussion of some salient points - Is that perhaps a pun, in this case?

1/. The sealing off of the meadowland "washlands" with high river banks has caused the need to raise flood defences in several towns such as Reedham and Stokesby, which never needed them before.  So the tidal water has to go somewhere else - upriver!

2/. Rainwater flooding (nothing to do with tides)  has the same restriction, caused by (1) above.

3/. The whole river Yare from Yarmouth to Norwich used to be dredged to a minimum 12ft at low water, for the maritime shipping traffic.  A huge volume of water to absorb incoming tides.  How deep is it now I wonder?  And where does all that water go now?

4/. I was not impressed with the clip about dredging as it takes no account of the constant flow out to sea of the Broads rivers, from their headwaters.  The river Bure starts flowing somewhere between Kings Lynn and Aylsham.  All of this area of country, in times of heavy rain, drains out through the Broads.  Just like the Somerset Levels, or the upper Thames above Teddington.

5/. Every time you build yet another huge retail park or housing estate on what used to be farmland and cover it in Tarmac, you are just adding to the run-off of rainwater into these rivers.

 

 

[LizG]

21 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

5/. Every time you build yet another huge retail park or housing estate on what used to be farmland and cover it in Tarmac, you are just adding to the run-off of rainwater into these rivers.

Every time someone concretes over their drive way might not seem very important but if you add a 100 drive ways then the effect is noticeable!

[CambridgeCabby]

50 minutes ago, LizG said:

Every time someone concretes over their drive way might not seem very important but if you add a 100 drive ways then the effect is noticeable!

Hence why now in Cambridge area you need planning permission if you wish to pave your drive and if you do it has to have drainage to prevent run off , not sure if Norfolk has similar conditions 

[Bytheriver]

5 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Hence why now in Cambridge area you need planning permission if you wish to pave your drive and if you do it has to have drainage to prevent run off , not sure if Norfolk has similar conditions 

Its a requirement of NPPF There was a new edition issued July 2021 - makes an interesting read with many mentions of "The Broads" ( That area were BA is the Planning Authority ) having equal status to a National Park 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005759/NPPF_July_2021.pdf

[floydraser]

Vaughan mentioned the Somerset levels. This subject reminds me of the controversy following the major flooding there. Didn't it come to light that there had been similar arguments as to whether or not dredging should have taken place previous to the floods?

[Bytheriver]

8 hours ago, floydraser said:

Vaughan mentioned the Somerset levels. This subject reminds me of the controversy following the major flooding there. Didn't it come to light that there had been similar arguments as to whether or not dredging should have taken place previous to the floods?

I remember reading a report into the 2013-14 floods but good old Google has let me down but this report from Exeter University seems to give a fair overall prospective 

https://geography.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/schoolofgeography/winterfloods/documents/Butler_et_al_2016_Socia_Political_DynamicsFloods.pdf

[TheQ]

On 27/11/2021 at 23:47, Wussername said:

I do understand your post Karisma and sympathise with your suggestion of resolving this issue. An exciting prospect. Others have suggested removing the bridge completely. 

Wroxham bridge, ticks all the boxes, let's get rid of the thing, in truth a bit of an eye sore.  Ludham Bridge. Not aesthetically pleasing is it. Let's be done with it. Build another one. 

 

Andrew

 

Hoveton Bridge, is a mess because of all the Iron work on top to take the weight, Had the bypass been built, that Iron work would have been removed. The new foot bridge would not have been required and the bridge would look not too dissimilar to Potter Heigham..