River Lugg

boisker

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
2,940
Location
Devon
Sorry Bert, this is your whole post although I've hopefully highlighted the part I was referring to. This is what the farmer would be charged with whether or not anybody downstream has yet been flooded. The EA and any professional hydrologist could easily prove that his actions have increased the risk of flooding.
Whether they'd want to or not is another matter but might hear the rumble of bulldozers if not?

Reg Wyatt

Reg.. no-one from EA or any gov agency will be prosecuting on the basis of increased flooding downstream... it really isn’t that simple, they would need a whole load of expensive technical data and even then it would be a nightmare to prove in court...

but what is obvious is damage to the SSSi as protected under the wildlife and countryside act. Whether the prosecution proceeds has little to do with whether it can be proven, that would be simple... but as always, workloads, priorities and budgets will decide...

that is unless they get Bert to make the SSSI assessment next summer:
Green..... ?..... yes
Pleasant.... ?..... hell yes!
presence, absence or damage to SSSI cited habitat features and protected species....?.... boll@x to that who cares....
 

bonefishblues

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
3,287
Location
Near Bicester, Oxon
Justifiable is in the eyes of the beholder, and indeed the recipient.
Those in the area whom did not get flooded are the recipients.
Bet they are delighted.
I am only an onlooker, but have been there done that.
I am dumbfounded at the diatribe, and ignorance, displayed by many associations/bodies/agencies in the general hubrus aimed at this farmer whom tried to stop major damage to his local hamlet!
He succeeded, and gets pelters!
Yes, it will be interesting to see the outcome.
Bert
We both know that the farmer went way way beyond anything that might be called reasonable flood mitigation. Simply clearing the third arch would likely have been sufficient, as was being indicated by the EA.
 

bonefishblues

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
3,287
Location
Near Bicester, Oxon
Reg.. no-one from EA or any gov agency will be prosecuting on the basis of increased flooding downstream... it really isn’t that simple, they would need a whole load of expensive technical data and even then it would be a nightmare to prove in court...

but what is obvious is damage to the SSSi as protected under the wildlife and countryside act. Whether the prosecution proceeds has little to do with whether it can be proven, that would be simple... but as always, workloads, priorities and budgets will decide...

that is unless they get Bert to make the SSSI assessment next summer:
Green..... ?..... yes
Pleasant.... ?..... hell yes!
presence, absence or damage to SSSI cited habitat features and protected species....?.... boll@x to that who cares....
That's why I am suggesting that if there's been flood damage downstream it would be civil action that would be more likely.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,483
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
That's not correct, for the reasons I outlined earlier. The farmer, by his acts may not cause harm or damage to others.

The test in civil law is on the balance of probabilities - that is, something is more likely than not. Things do not need to be proven.

The 4 houses adjacent to the work are totally irrelevant.
As said before, is likely is more than 4 houses, and indeed they are not ever irrelevant!
Try that one in the village!
Indeed your other comment re balance of probabilities, farmer does nothing.
Village floods.
Meanwhile, downstream flooding occurs.
Farmer does something.
No flooding in village.
Meanwhile, downstream flooding occurs
Somewhat more likely than not?
Balance of probability.
Except that is actual fact.
Bert
 

boisker

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
2,940
Location
Devon
That's why I am suggesting that if there's been flood damage downstream it would be civil action that would be more likely.

yeah, but there’d still be a burden of proof, which I reckon would be costly

you won’t like ‘burden of proof’ but however you word it you’d need some level of evidence other than a gut feeling
 

bonefishblues

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
3,287
Location
Near Bicester, Oxon
yeah, but there’d still be a burden of proof, which I reckon would be costly

you won’t like ‘burden of proof’ but however you word it you’d need some level of evidence other than a gut feeling
Agreed, evidence would need to be provided sufficient to establish causality.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,483
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
We both know that the farmer went way way beyond anything that might be called reasonable flood mitigation. Simply clearing the third arch would likely have been sufficient, as was being indicated by the EA.
Ahhhh, but that is subjective, would it have caused flooding further downstream or not?
No one knows if clearing arch would have stopped village flooding, looking at available photo's, I cant see how it could, but is, as said subjective
Why did EA not carry out said works?
Farmer did everything he could to stop village flooding.
It seems to have worked!
Bert
 

bonefishblues

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
3,287
Location
Near Bicester, Oxon
Ahhhh, but that is subjective, would it have caused flooding further downstream or not?
No one knows if clearing arch would have stopped village flooding, looking at available photo's, I cant see how it could, but is, as said subjective
Why did EA not carry out said works?
Farmer did everything he could to stop village flooding.
It seems to have worked!
Bert
I think that was the professional view of the EA wasn't it?

EA is resource-starved, and in any event doesn't have a statutory duty to do the work, if I understand correctly. What it does is regulate and advise others, primarily landowners, to ensure that they carry out work correctly. That's what they were engaged in doing when the farmer did his work.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,483
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
I think that was the professional view of the EA wasn't it?

EA is resource-starved, and in any event doesn't have a statutory duty to do the work, if I understand correctly. What it does is regulate and advise others, primarily landowners, to ensure that they carry out work correctly. That's what they were engaged in doing when the farmer did his work.
From what I have managed to ascertain from both farmers and EA's remarks/comments/statements, call them what you like, EA basically gave farmer verbal permission to do what he (the farmer) thought neccessary to alleviate the flooding problem, because they, (the EA), would not, a funding problem.
Farmer holds off whilst EA talk to local community, they say same to them.
Farmer gets ripped into problem.
Flooding problem gone!
EA are going to try to bury this one, and English Nature, or whatever they are called now, are going to be silent, because sssi's were not of their making, and the wildlife trust wont pay fortunes to defend same.
Is just the way it is.
Not being cynical, but in 6 or 7 months, river bank will be alive and full of wildlife, but will still be a good flood barrier!
Bert
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,325
Location
West Oxfordshire
Those who are defending the actions of the farmer are all citing some form of altruism without actually knowing his true motivation.
Perhaps they should keep a bit more of an open mind on why he did what he did rather than clinging on to the insistence that he was acting in the interests of the local community which is pure conjecture.
Remember that there is a recent planning application floating round...
 

Laxdale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
615
Location
Western Isles, Scotland
Those who are defending the actions of the farmer are all citing some form of altruism without actually knowing his true motivation.
Perhaps they should keep a bit more of an open mind on why he did what he did rather than clinging on to the insistence that he was acting in the interests of the local community which is pure conjecture.
Remember that there is a recent planning application floating round...
The last sentence is conjecture, yes?

I asked for a post flood picture to try and make an informed opinion on whether the lovely newly sculptured riverbank was just eroding into the river or not. If not, all is good.
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,325
Location
West Oxfordshire
Not being cynical, but in 6 or 7 months, river bank will be alive and full of wildlife, but will still be a good flood barrier!
Bert
Firstly, damage and removal of a rivers substrate will never repair itself anytime soon, if ever. This is the lungs of a river and what those little spotty things that we fish for rely on food and reproduction.
Secondly, the inevitable reduction in summer flow rate and reduction in bank integrity will lead to increased silting which will further degrade the river bed in terms of suitable trout habitat and over time reduce the carrying capacity of the river which in turns will increase it's liability to flooding.
River management and flood defence isn't a job for the enthusiastic amateur...
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,325
Location
West Oxfordshire
The last sentence is conjecture, yes?

I asked for a post flood picture to try and make an informed opinion on whether the lovely newly sculptured riverbank was just eroding into the river or not. If not, all is good.
Yes it is conjecture, that's my point and that's why I wouldn't jump in and say that the farmer was acting for his own interests. However this doesn't stop some insisting that he is some sort of local hero. In truth we don't know.
What we do know is that he has in all likelihood, acted illegally.
 

blithfield2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,403
Those who are defending the actions of the farmer are all citing some form of altruism without actually knowing his true motivation.
Perhaps they should keep a bit more of an open mind on why he did what he did rather than clinging on to the insistence that he was acting in the interests of the local community which is pure conjecture.
Remember that there is a recent planning application floating round...
You are inventing the fact that I think he is a 'local hero' but I am underlining and emphasising the most important word in the above.........'action'.............action was needed to reduce or limit the dangers of flooding and the appropriate authorities failed to take that action. For whatever reason, the farmer stepped in and from the message in the local paper I copied earlier, he may well have done the trick! He may have saved property and collateral damage but at least he did something - if I was faced with similar circumstances, I would do!
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,325
Location
West Oxfordshire
You are inventing the fact that I think he is a 'local hero' but I am underlining and emphasising the most important word in the above.........'action'.............action was needed to reduce or limit the dangers of flooding and the appropriate authorities failed to take that action. For whatever reason, the farmer stepped in and from the message in the local paper I copied earlier, he may well have done the trick! He may have saved property and collateral damage but at least he did something - if I was faced with similar circumstances, I would do!
It's quite likely that local flooding would be reduced, in the short term at least by his actions. The effect on flooding downstream is as others have pointed out is very difficult to quantify but the perceived wisdom is that it certainly won't have helped.
As has already been pointed out the EA were in discussion with the farmer and PC about flood alleviation measures so I'm sorry, but your defence of 'lack of action' by the EA doesn't hold water. Had the farmer consulted properly with the EA and obtained the necessary permits we wouldn't be having this conversation. As it happens, he didn't and proceeded to destroy 1 mile of river and bank.
You need to look at the bigger picture here, failure to prosecute the farmer for his unauthorised action would result in setting a very dangerous precedent... if you really want to see landowners free to carry out any amount of work they like for whatever reason then maybe you should question if you should actually be on a fishing forum.
 
Last edited:

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,325
Location
West Oxfordshire

Paul_B

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
4,261
Location
West Riding of Yorkshire
So he cleared the arch and removed the immediate downstream restrictions :unsure:

Not quite as drastic as the dredging that was done on the Somerset Levels but with the same outcome
 

rusty

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,443
Location
Powys
How long will it be before we hear the findings of the River Lugg incident investigation?

I recall that the investigation into Tony Blair's decision to attack Iraq took longer than the 2nd World War!

Rusty
 
Top