Environmental 'vandal', or considerate landowner?

[johnphilip]

8 hours ago, manthing said:

It was planed and authorised work.

https://kingsland-pc.gov.uk/statement-on-the-recent-work-at-the-lugg/?fbclid=IwAR0oiDUCbQIuW0KbHqf8WCi93uiQzjNiKNXr2HdqWHj1aTMRQxhAtGvfLNE

https://yourherefordshire.co.uk/all/news/news-reports-that-farmer-bulldozed-land-next-to-river-lugg-to-protect-homes-from-flooding/?fbclid=IwAR0NIsfShBrciFcGpdyODktGoWU1njib-G-nhI94JBMveTwLF7DF78-plCE

Dammed  if you do and Dammed  if you don't,  pen pushers causing problems  because they feel they can .

[scolopax]

On 06/12/2020 at 21:10, johnphilip said:

He did it for others not for himself  , hats of to the man .

 All jolly good, hope it gives him a warm fuzzy feeling whilst sat in his jail cell.

[Rewulf]

On 06/12/2020 at 17:33, scolopax said:

Well he has admitted it, saves a long drawn out trial. A custodial sentence is appropriate plus loss of any public money he receives 

How do you work that out ?

Whilst its certainly possible to receive a jail term for this kind of offence, IF he is taken to court AND convicted, its also highly unlikely.
A much more probable course of action is a fine, which Im sure he will not struggle to pay , particularly if he has some grateful villagers behind him.

You seem particularly eager for a man who thought he was doing the right thing to end up behind bars, when in this day and age, thieves and violent criminals often walk free ?
A bit of balance to your way of thinking is needed.

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

for this kind of offence

More recent reports (posted by manthing above) suggest that this was both planned and authorised.  `I'm not at all sure where the truth lies here.

[Rewulf]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

More recent reports (posted by manthing above) suggest that this was both planned and authorised.  `I'm not at all sure where the truth lies here.

Thats irrelevant to some people, the sort that shoot first and ask questions later.

[johnphilip]

3 hours ago, scolopax said:

 All jolly good, hope it gives him a warm fuzzy feeling whilst sat in his jail cell.

I am sure he will be very happy your not his legal representative  then .

[Fisheruk]

Looks to me as though there is egg on face for the Cheif Executive of the Wildlife Trust.

[manthing]

Strange world we live in. Would be funny if it wasn't so true.

[Mice!]

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/environment/farmer-hits-back-over-flood-work-on-protected-river

 

[243deer]

There now seems to be a complete lack of strategic thinking in many of our agencies. This is a case of over-reaction and how to alienate the farmers who do a great deal for the countryside and wildlife at their own expense. Farmers often even bequeth tracts of land to wildlife trusts, I suspect many will now think twice. Even if he was technically one permit short that would suggest an unreasonably complicated system rather than a deliberate avoidance on his part. As for the tabloid type reporting by the BBC it demonstrates the low standards to which it has fallen, time it was gone

[johnphilip]

5 hours ago, Mice! said:

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/environment/farmer-hits-back-over-flood-work-on-protected-river

 

Great read up , thanks for sharing  . Typical  left hand does not know what the right hand is doing . This must all be very disturbing  for the farmer. Can't do right for the parish , because fools can not organise things professionally. 

[scolopax]

Of course he won’t go to jail.  But he has a good chance at losing a large part of his SFP, or whatever it is called. Maybe the payments he receives for all five of his farms will all be reduced.  He may have had permission from parish council ( does that count for anything at all?!) and possibly to some degree by EA, but it reads like he did not have a consent for works on a SSSI from Natural England. Which is the biggie, and most likely the very very costly one.

[derbyduck]

On 08/12/2020 at 00:59, manthing said:

It was planed and authorised work.

https://kingsland-pc.gov.uk/statement-on-the-recent-work-at-the-lugg/?fbclid=IwAR0oiDUCbQIuW0KbHqf8WCi93uiQzjNiKNXr2HdqWHj1aTMRQxhAtGvfLNE

https://yourherefordshire.co.uk/all/news/news-reports-that-farmer-bulldozed-land-next-to-river-lugg-to-protect-homes-from-flooding/?fbclid=IwAR0NIsfShBrciFcGpdyODktGoWU1njib-G-nhI94JBMveTwLF7DF78-plCE

There you have it ,the Press does not let the truth stand in the way of a story !

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, scolopax said:

Of course he won’t go to jail.  But he has a good chance at losing a large part of his SFP, or whatever it is called. Maybe the payments he receives for all five of his farms will all be reduced.  He may have had permission from parish council ( does that count for anything at all?!) and possibly to some degree by EA, but it reads like he did not have a consent for works on a SSSI from Natural England. Which is the biggie, and most likely the very very costly one.

You sound really disappointed ?
I thought you were all up for hanging him ?

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, scolopax said:

Of course he won’t go to jail.  But he has a good chance at losing a large part of his SFP, or whatever it is called. Maybe the payments he receives for all five of his farms will all be reduced.  He may have had permission from parish council ( does that count for anything at all?!) and possibly to some degree by EA, but it reads like he did not have a consent for works on a SSSI from Natural England. Which is the biggie, and most likely the very very costly one.

What's your issue with what he did, it sounds like quite genuinely the community there have serious issues with flooding and it sounds like the works he's undertaken will help to limit it. I wonder if you'd feel differently if it were your house at risk of flooding? 

[Mice!]

5 hours ago, johnphilip said:

Great read up , thanks for sharing  . Typical  left hand does not know what the right hand is doing . This must all be very disturbing  for the farmer. Can't do right for the parish , because fools can not organise things professionally. 

I imagine he isn't worried,  it sounds like everything was in place then someone decided differently?

I can understand they don't want just anyone ripping up river banks but he certainly seems to know what he was doing, I doubt the EA would have done such a good job.

[JohnfromUK]

After a long gap ............... it looks like it is now going to court;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10597835/Farmer-John-Price-bulldozed-River-Lugg-beauty-spot-help-flooding-faces-criminal-charges.html

[johnphilip]

15 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

After a long gap ............... it looks like it is now going to court;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10597835/Farmer-John-Price-bulldozed-River-Lugg-beauty-spot-help-flooding-faces-criminal-charges.html

Note  they don't show any pictures of it now . Unless I missed them .

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I hope he fights it and sensible justice is done.

[wymberley]

3 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I hope he fights it and sensible justice is done.

This is an absolute disgrace. If this farmer suffers any penalty whatsoever for his actions and is hauled over the coals then so too should be the agencies whose inactions caused the whole sorry mess. I'll wager next month's pension that the temporary disturbance caused, if not already complete, is well on the way to a total recovery.

[Mice!]

6 hours ago, johnphilip said:

Note  they don't show any pictures of it now . Unless I missed them .

I wonder if it's flooded since?

[derbyduck]

8 hours ago, johnphilip said:

Note  they don't show any pictures of it now . Unless I missed them .

 I've just had a look at it on google earth and to be honest if wasn't for the bridge and the farm it would be hard to pick it out from the rest of the river , the shingle bank looks just like the others on the river with the grass growing down to it , nice back cast. 

[Jim Neal]

The Environment Agency, both now and in their previous guise as the National Rivers Authority, carry out the exact same process to watercourses in the name of flood prevention.  The only difference is that this landowner has probably made a much better job of it.

[Scully]

7 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

The Environment Agency, both now and in their previous guise as the National Rivers Authority, carry out the exact same process to watercourses in the name of flood prevention.  The only difference is that this landowner has probably made a much better job of it.

This. I have quite a few farming friends, all of whom years ago dredged the dikes and gullies on their land to prevent them ‘silting up’ and flooding the land. Some of it still goes on, but far from prying eyes and on the quiet. 
If I recall correctly, during Storm Desmond a few local lads with 360’s helping out the locals in Glenridding, much to the annoyance of, and against EA policy. The fact it helped enormously was possibly why no action was taken against them. 
Edited to add: water doesn’t soak into tarmac or concrete, yet building houses on flood plains and marshy areas still seems to be common practise, at least around here. 🤷‍♂️

Edited March 11, 2022 by Scully

[JohnfromUK]

The logic is fair.  If you straighten and deepen the little streams at higher level and surrounded by absorbent ground, you will hasten the run off.

However, once you have a decent sized flow, you want it to 'move along', or any restriction in flow will raise levels and stop all of the little feeder streams draining into it so quickly. 

Taken to it's conclusion, in areas where flood causes damage to property etc., you want to improve the flow to lower the levels and get the water moving (eventually right sown to the sea), but at high levels where no damage is likely, allowing it to 'back up' can reduce the peak pressures on the system.  There is a balance to be struck, but generally, getting the lower parts - especially where flooding is damaging to property) to flow better is sound.

I live near the Severn, which now - in the upper parts (Shropshire, North Worcestershire etc.) - has a lot of portable flood defences that are put up when it's risky.  This allows river levels to rise within the (raised) banks and improves flow.  BUT the consequence is that levels rise faster and possibly further as the extra water shifts downstream rather than spreading out.  That means Worcester, Upton on Severn, Tewkesbury etc.  Upton has now added flood walls and I think so has parts of Worcester.  Tewkesbury doesn't (yet anyway) as being a river junction of a rather complex nature - it isn't just 'two banks' - rather a complex mix of different channels.