River Swale - Topcliffe

[904_cannon]

Has anyone missed this?

UK Hydro Ltd

Closing date for comments: 20 March 2013. A licence to obstruct or impede the flow of water at the River Swale, Topcliffe, Yorkshire located at NGR 439640,476340.


Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by the water act 2003)
Notice of application for a licence to obstruct or impede the flow of an inland water by means of impounding works.

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Section 37 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and Regulation 6 of the Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006 that an application has been made to the Environment Agency by Mann Power Consultancy Limited on behalf of

UK Hydro Limited

for a licence to obstruct or impede the flow of water at the River Swale, Topcliffe, Yorkshire located at NGR 439640,476340.

The object of impounding water by means of the works is to construct a hydropower scheme for the generation of electricity via two twin Archimedes Screw Turbines.
The impounding structure will consist of two twin Archimedes Screw Turbines, control room and associated housing constructed within the River Swale, incorporating two sluice gates, a coarse screen with 150 millimetres bar spacing, a fish pass, eel pass and an intake chamber.

The water will be used for generation of hydro-electric power. All water abstracted will be returned from the turbine house to the River Swale at National Grid Reference SE 39658 76319.

The maximum instantaneous turbine flow will be 19,260 l/s.

A copy of the application, map, plan and any other document submitted with it may be inspected free of charge at the address of the Environment Agency at 8 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AT during normal office hours (Monday-Friday, except bank holidays).

Summary details of the application are also available from the Public Register held at the above address and may also be inspected free of charge during normal office hours.

Current applications can be found at

Environment Agency - Applications for full licences to abstract or impound water

 

[jimlad]

I had certainly missed that! As its a stretch I often fish ( along with many others ) there will be opposition. However I will make this known to the clubs in question and those who fish it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kickstart]

This is very serious. The EA kept this one quiet.

Anyone with fishing on the Swale needs to contact their club urgently.

Kickstart

 

[jimlad]

Already have....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bennygesserit]

This is very serious. The EA kept this one quiet.

Anyone with fishing on the Swale needs to contact their club urgently.

Kickstart

I don't think it's been kept quiet so much as it hasn't been publicised in a way that some anglers would notice.
An idea might be plotting abstraction licenses on a Google map or even easier publish a list on here of all proposed hydro licenses.

However I am sure this info is also on the EA web site.

Maybe Jeff W or John could point at a link ? As far as I am aware there are thousands of these planned for the UK.

As a footnote I disagree with the use of inaccurate photos as part of the trusts campaign against hydro but having read quite a bit I support the actual campaign itself, anyway let's not detract from the opening post.


Question how do I obtain a list of proposed hydro in my area and how do I get involved with protest if that's what I want to do ?

 

[kickstart]

I have had some involvement opposing the Settle abomination and I fronted up the EA directly about it (and directly involved my MP!)

I honestly believe these low head Hydro schemes are a bigger threat to Rivers(and not just fishing) than pollution, poaching, Otters, Canoes all put together.

The biggest kick in the spondoolies is the fact they generate absolutely tiny amounts of Electricity yet attract sizable funds from the Government (your money) in grants.

I believe it is the ability to harvest these stupid ill informed "Green"grants that are the real reason for the existence of these Hydro companies.

The EA do sod all to oppose them and are therefore not fit for purpose yet I am forced to fund the beggers if I want to go fishing.

Sorry about the rant but on this occasion it is justified.

Kickstart

 

[bennygesserit]

John has already posted a list

 

[904_cannon]

As the EA is still consulting on river flow, abstraction and standards for hydro applications I would have thought all current and pending applications should be put on hold

Durham County Council Planning Committee meets 5th March to consider an application for a hydro scheme on the Wear in Durham.

The developers 'Environmental Survey' found just one 'significant' species, the eel! Apparently two were recorded in 2004 some 400mtrs upstream on the proposed site.

As the Wear is now considered to be the best sea trout river in the country, and the 2nd best salmon river after the Tyne, not to mention having produced the National record dace, big chub, barbel and a recently taken 25lb carp
I think their application will be blown out of the water, so to speak

Any club etc facing a similar problem get the ATr involved. Dr Alan Butterworth prepared a great paper objecting the Wear Scheme

 

[bennygesserit]

As the EA is still consulting on river flow, abstraction and standards for hydro applications I would have thought all current and pending applications should be put on hold

Durham County Council Planning Committee meets 5th March to consider an application for a hydro scheme on the Wear in Durham.

The developers 'Environmental Survey' found just one 'significant' species, the eel! Apparently two were recorded in 2004 some 400mtrs upstream on the proposed site.

As the Wear is now considered to be the best sea trout river in the country, and the 2nd best salmon river after the Tyne, not to mention having produced the National record dace, big chub, barbel and a recently taken 25lb carp
I think their application will be blown out of the water, so to speak

Any club etc facing a similar problem get the ATr involved. Dr Alan Butterworth prepared a great paper objecting the Wear Scheme

I was too slow again

 

[kickstart]

As the EA is still consulting on river flow, abstraction and standards for hydro applications I would have thought all current and pending applications should be put on hold

Durham County Council Planning Committee meets 5th March to consider an application for a hydro scheme on the Wear in Durham.

The developers 'Environmental Survey' found just one 'significant' species, the eel! Apparently two were recorded in 2004 some 400mtrs upstream on the proposed site.

As the Wear is now considered to be the best sea trout river in the country, and the 2nd best salmon river after the Tyne, not to mention having produced the National record dace, big chub, barbel and a recently taken 25lb carp
I think their application will be blown out of the water, so to speak

Any club etc facing a similar problem get the ATr involved. Dr Alan Butterworth prepared a great paper objecting the Wear Scheme

Based upon experience with other schemes, the EA will offer no (or minimal) objection and the application will be passed. The Hydro company will then access public funds to build a comprehensive case for the scheme by "experts" and unless all hell breaks loose from Anglers including legal action it will go ahead. Then it's pay day for the Hydro company.

I hope I am wrong.

Kickstart

 

[bennygesserit]

Has anyone missed this?

UK Hydro Ltd

Closing date for comments: 20 March 2013. A licence to obstruct or impede the flow of water at the River Swale, Topcliffe, Yorkshire located at NGR 439640,476340.


Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by the water act 2003)
Notice of application for a licence to obstruct or impede the flow of an inland water by means of impounding works.

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Section 37 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and Regulation 6 of the Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006 that an application has been made to the Environment Agency by Mann Power Consultancy Limited on behalf of

UK Hydro Limited

for a licence to obstruct or impede the flow of water at the River Swale, Topcliffe, Yorkshire located at NGR 439640,476340.

The object of impounding water by means of the works is to construct a hydropower scheme for the generation of electricity via two twin Archimedes Screw Turbines.
The impounding structure will consist of two twin Archimedes Screw Turbines, control room and associated housing constructed within the River Swale, incorporating two sluice gates, a coarse screen with 150 millimetres bar spacing, a fish pass, eel pass and an intake chamber.

The water will be used for generation of hydro-electric power. All water abstracted will be returned from the turbine house to the River Swale at National Grid Reference SE 39658 76319.

The maximum instantaneous turbine flow will be 19,260 l/s.

A copy of the application, map, plan and any other document submitted with it may be inspected free of charge at the address of the Environment Agency at 8 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AT during normal office hours (Monday-Friday, except bank holidays).

Summary details of the application are also available from the Public Register held at the above address and may also be inspected free of charge during normal office hours.

Current applications can be found at

Environment Agency - Applications for full licences to abstract or impound water

John you and I have disagreed about lots of things in the past and its certainly not my intention to upset you again.

I was interested in how someone might have a hydro scheme in their area and not know about it - your opening post was "has anyone missed this ?" Do the AT inform anyone or is it a matter of looking at the list you provided ( link above ). Do you think there is any worth in people objecting outside of any club activity ? So for instance if every member of a club protested in the way you describe that might have quite an impact.

What I am saying really is are there opportunities for individual anglers to get involved in Hydro protests and is there a way , other than checking the list you provided, for people to understand what is going on in their area ?

I suppose being a member of a club would help with most of the above.

 

[sam vimes]

It might be worth finding out exactly how the club concerned are involved before getting too wound up. If the suggestions I've seen elsewhere are true, some of you aren't going to be happy.

 

[904_cannon]

Benny, I just happened to come across it whilst looking at the list the EA have applications for. Probably best to 'badger' the individual local authority/county council planning officers, as I did with the Wear application, to be made aware of any on your own river or rivers you fish.

As the EA is now consulting on flow rates/regimes of hydro schemes I would think, but what do I know, that all current applications might be void.

As I found out today the developers have hastily amended their application as the original water volume figures were based on nothing meaningful.

Kickstart, I'm aware of the problems your having on the Ribble. When I spoke with the EA today they said that the developers of any hydro scheme would have to stick to and observe many criteria hey have to meet. When I put it to them that it hadn't made much difference on the Ribble they went very quiet.
How far have you got re; the fish not migrating because of the noise caused by the turbines. Just one of the many criteria they are breaking I believe.

 

[Sean Meeghan]

A friend of mine was involved in some of the consultation about a scheme on the Wharfe. Apparently the EA have been instructed to minimise objections to these schemes as much as possible.

The weir at Topcliffe has been listed as one of the high priorities for taking action to improve eel migration in the Humber catchment.

From what you've said Sam I assume that LDAA have raised no objection to the scheme?

 

[sam vimes]

Leeds & District ASA Forums - topcliffe flyer peg ruined

I wonder what the residents of the mill house flats think of it, not to mention the otter huggers.

 

[jimlad]

As you can see in the link, I raised it with the relevant club who have been aware of it and involved in discussions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kickstart]

Benny, I just happened to come across it whilst looking at the list the EA have applications for. Probably best to 'badger' the individual local authority/county council planning officers, as I did with the Wear application, to be made aware of any on your own river or rivers you fish.

As the EA is now consulting on flow rates/regimes of hydro schemes I would think, but what do I know, that all current applications might be void.

As I found out today the developers have hastily amended their application as the original water volume figures were based on nothing meaningful.

Kickstart, I'm aware of the problems your having on the Ribble. When I spoke with the EA today they said that the developers of any hydro scheme would have to stick to and observe many criteria hey have to meet. When I put it to them that it hadn't made much difference on the Ribble they went very quiet.
How far have you got re; the fish not migrating because of the noise caused by the turbines. Just one of the many criteria they are breaking I believe.

According to the EA, migratory fish movements on the Ribble above the Hydro has dropped by 40% since it's introduction. In order to establish if that is caused by the Hydro or a general reduction in numbers in the river as a whole, the EA have radio tagged some fish. Some of these tagged fish fell foul of "well known" poachers and the exercise is now limited in usefulness.

The postulate is that the underwater infra sounds generateds by the Hydro cutting in and out causes the fish to turn away. We don't know yet if they return or the females end up as Baggots.

What is not in doubt is the fact that it breached it's licence conditions 287 times prior to the EA growing some balls. The other fact is despite putting an £11 million pound Salmon fishery at risk (EA figures) it generated energy to power Four, yes Four houses last year (The Hydro companies own figures)

I wonder what they got from The Governmnet in grants?

Kickstart

 

[jimlad]

A recent angling trust report highlighted the following:

- there is no substantial monitoring of the impact of hydropower developments on the ecology
- it creates a natural barrier to fish, increasing the likelihood of predation (trust me it does, the seals at tees barrage have a field day despite fish passes. Those otters and cormorants will have a great time)
- it kills fish that pass through turbines
- it reduces flow, which in turn prevents the natural flow of sediment and snags


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---------- Post added at 02:25 ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 ----------

I suppose it all depends on the size of the proposed scheme. Topcliffe already has a weir, it may be that this will pose little difference but someone needs to look at the plans first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[904_cannon]

Sadly the Wear scheme was today passed by Durham County Council planning committee. The only comment from one councillor, who proposed acceptance, was that he was once an angler, he used to bait hooks for cod on Amble beech and he thought the plan was OK! Apparently setting long lines qualified him to approve the scheme. Even the planning officer involved misrepresented what the EA fisheries dept had said.

 

[flightliner]

It says in the opening post that the maximum rate of abstraction is 19260 l/s -- I assume thats litres per second.
My mathes is a little rusty so if I,m wrong please correct me but --
3600 secs in an hour = 86400 secs in a day
therefore 19260 x 86400 = 1664064000 Litres max can be extracted
-----------
4.571 (litres in a gallon)
= 364,048129 gallons p/day
I dont know the normal flow rates of the Swale but I was once told by the lockkeeper at Cromwell wier on the Trent that 16,000,000 million gallons of water flows over there in normal conditions/levels.
If all this is correct it would seem that the people wanting to inplement this idea are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, again if true then the whole development could be slimmed down considerably even accounting for severe flooding if thats pertinant.