• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

river goyt archimeadian screw objection details

Jerry Gleeson

Jerry Gleeson

Senior Member
The proposed plans for the construction of an archimeadian screw at pear mill on the river goyt have been put up, i would ask anyone who has ever fished the river/wants to fish the river/never even heard of the river to place an objection, this is just one of the proposed constructions planned for the river and in my opinion should all the schemes go ahead could be the start of a slow death for this small northern spate river
variety045.jpg

tight lines
jerry
 
Far, far better to do this in writing ( but as well, no harm in objecting on site on their site). Objections to the planning department on paper, as shown in photo, possibly carry more weight.
Get anyone else you know to object as well. Birdwatchers, walkers etc etc.

There will be heavy traffic to and from the site to carry materials, much noise, disturbance to the river and its wildlife, risk of pullution. There will be no fishing possible from the beach at PM into the weir as far as I can see after the unit is installed. That is where the outlet will be placed.

If you only write one letter this century, write this one. And then add a second for Otterspool. This is green in name only. The benefits are political only. No great amount of power will be produced. All this does is let someone on the council bask with pride as he claims to be green.

Please act now. You don't have much time.
 
What harm will it do if it's just harnesing the energy from an existing weir....I'm sorry but I would have to reserve judgement on a scheme such as this and judge each one on it's merit with knowing the detail

A few weeks ago I sat in on a EA presentation on hydro power and to be honest it didnt worry me in the slightest, that's not to say if I thought a scheme was doing damage to the river I would tell them......and did you know that apparently fish will pass through the archamedean screw....they have to be a bit careful though!

Cheers
Jason
 
It could be an improvement if fish can pass up the screw, it may take the pressure off that weir, which is very popular for some reason and is overfished.
 
Jason Bean said:
What harm will it do if it's just harnesing the energy from an existing weir....I'm sorry but I would have to reserve judgement on a scheme such as this and judge each one on it's merit with knowing the detail

A few weeks ago I sat in on a EA presentation on hydro power and to be honest it didnt worry me in the slightest, that's not to say if I thought a scheme was doing damage to the river I would tell them......and did you know that apparently fish will pass through the archamedean screw....they have to be a bit careful though!

Cheers
Jason
Click to expand...

Jason, fish can indeed pass safely through such a screw, provided that its diameter is sufficiently large, but ONLY in a downstream direction. A screw effectively compartmentalises the water. Fish transit downstream is within a sort of moving elevator. It only works one way.

The problem with this scheme is that it is not "just harnessing the energy", it is removing a safe, accessible, highly popular swim from angling use, due to the location of the screw and outlet channel. Much of the river has steep sided banks, difficult to access, especially for the elderly angler, which become positively dangerous following spate or rain.
The river has few swims suitable for the less agile angler.

It will also have major effect on the wildlife, especially the pair of dippers that have nested at the edge of the weir for several years now. ( the only pair of dippers breeding anywhere near the town centre)
 
Last edited:
John have you told the relevent people this...are you making them aware, are other anglers making them aware of there feelings and concerns and are local conservation/RSPB bods voicing concerns?

I cannot see the reason why a project such as this should not benefit anglers and wildlife...apart from the initial build construction wildlife habitat construction/habitat repairs and improved provision for anglers disabled or not should be all going hand in hand with such a project or am I missing something?

Cheers
Jason
 
If you wish to look at the application, The link is: http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/Pl...NAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=105039

If you click the documents tab you can look at the drawings, documents, etc, quite interesting being as this is the first of many to be planned, I was hoping to see the design sooner rather than later.

A few immediate thoughts: The screw works by fairly substantial volume abstraction so the characteristics of the ustream section would most definitely change. The weir would almost certainly suffer from extremely depleted flow in the summer months.

The weirpool environment would be changed dramatically also with substantial flow entering the river below, this would I imagine drastically alter any Barbel spawning reds which may occur immediately downstream of the weir.

There is a "proposed fish pass", not sure why this is only proposed other than to keep anglers and fish conservationists on side, there is no guarantee this will ever be built, and with the "intake screen" at the upper end, 130mm gaps between the bars would not allow adult fish of many species, i.e. Barbel, Chub, Bream, Carp, Pike, Salmon to pass through it so it is a complete waste of time, making it look even more political.

I am going to e-mail WRE Ltd., the Designers and ask the question, will let you know if they respond.
 
Jerry,

I had a response from WRE Ltd, they seem very genuine, the fish pass has to say proposed as it must be approved by the EA Fsih Pass council apparently. There must be one built as it is a stipulation of these type of installations. The intake screen is to catch floating debris and only extends to just below water level so fish actually pass below it.

If there was no fish pass there previously, this could be a positive thing as it removes the compounding effect of the weir on coarse species.

The downside is effects on spawning reds...........

Regarding loss of swims, if you guys raised objections, you could maybe get them to build some proper disabled platforms into the scheme if it were to go ahead.

My jury is still out on whether these are a good or bad thing, have not seen any impact assesment on existing installations.
 
On one of my local Rivers, a 18thC Mill has been renevated to near completion ( see http://www.rht.greenisp.org/index.htm ). The Mill now does not grind corn but uses the A screw for generating Electricity. It is online ( see http://mannpower.logic-energy.com/howsham/display.php ).

I cannot comment on how economically viable it is, but the actual Mill now has resulted in an improved flow in some aspects of the river with no detriment to the fishing. The renovation over 3 years did as a rope pulled barge was used to move equipment and material from the road access to the mill. That ruined the stretch for a while due to the barge and the rope laying on the river bed.
 
Darryl I was there when they switched on a load of Xmas lights after being invited by some locals who saw me fishing for chub in the snow. It was a very pleasant experience and the supporters were quite proud of their achievements. I didn't fish the stretch before the restoration work started but I had some lovely chub out on bread flake.

Conrad
 
hi darryl

looks very picturesque there, pity it doesn,t show the wheel in the photo,s,as the ones i,ve seen on other developments are an eye sore. i had a look at the power output on the link you put up and there are days when there is little or no output, this is where i think the amount of money spent on them could be put to better use.
Now i dont know about this one as i,ve not had chance to read everything about it yet, but the ones planned for the river goyt will take 80% of the the flow through the screw, which is a hell of a lot and after a chat with the chairman of one of the local fishing clubs i was informed that this will leave the weir pool nearly still drastically affecting spawning grounds and natural fish habitat.
tight lines
jerry
 
Copied from another site with permission

Gents (and ladies?) I have received an email from Angling Trust's (formerly ACA) Technical Director, Alan Butterworth, that was sent to the Planning Officer at SMBC (Jane Chase 0161 474 3550) regarding the proposed Hydro developments on the Goyt. He has urged that other ways of generating the small amount of renewable energy are sought and highlighted problems with the current plans for the hydro schemes and the fish passes.

In another email Alan said that the schemes have not been through the EA yet seeking consent for Abstraction which will provide another chance to object, albeit from a slightly different angle (see Angling Trust website for details).

the email:-

RE: Planning Applications for Hydropower on the River Goyt

Reference our telephone conversation on the 16th March concerning the proposals at Stringers Weir (aka Pear Mill) ref DC043916 and Otterspool ref DC043754. I am a Director of the Angling Trust, the unified body representing angling and fishery interests in England, and I advise the Trust on issues relating to hydropower. Until recently I was the national lead on fishery and hydropower issues for the Environment Agency. I was advised of these schemes by two members and directed to the details on your website, which I have viewed and I have a number of serious concerns which need to be addressed:

1. The River Goyt is a recovering river and has an excellent fish population, including coarse species, such as barbel and chub, and salmonids, such as brown trout, grayling and ever increasing numbers of salmon. I understand the eels have not been found recently, this is probably due to the past water quality of the Mersey tideway. Eels are very much threatened and one of the solutions to improve populations is opening access to more rivers to elvers, young eels. If Stockport Council were serious about improving the river environment and biodiversity, a preferred option would be to investigate the feasibility of removing or lowering the weirs which would greatly improve continuity and the ecology and morphology of the impounded reaches. I understand that hydropower is seen as desirable, but the very small, and uneconomic, amount of energy created by these two schemes could easily be generated by other renewable methods, or saved by programmes such as insulating houses. Please consider this seriously.

2. The two weirs are both passable upstream by salmon at flows either above a certain level or at a specific range of flows. It is not known whether other species are able to ascend, but many species may need to do so in order to maximise their populations and extend their range. Clearly, diverting water through turbines will reduce the period when salmon, and other species, are able to migrate. Therefore, quite rightly, the proposed schemes include technical fish passes and the chosen type, Larinier bottom baffle, are well suited to all species (except elvers). However, the difference between the upstream and downstream water levels at Stringer’s Weir would mean that the pass should include a resting pool midway in order to be completely accessible. Both schemes also need to include elver passes, which are relatively cheap, and there is new legislation which requires these. The discharge of the passes at 10% of the maximum turbine capacity should be sufficiently attractive but see 3.

3. The proposed fish passes must be at least as good as the current situation as required by the Water Framework Directive to prevent unacceptable deterioration . There are a number of design issues which need to be addressed to achieve this:

• Whilst the positioning of the pass next to the turbines is good, both schemes should have their discharge at the toe of the weir, not significantly downstream as shown. I realise this could be difficult at Otterspool because of the bridge, and at Stringers because of the sharp bend. In any event, At Otterspool, it is difficult to understand how the position of the left hand bridge arch can possibly allow as much water as needed into the turbine.
• Normally positioning the fish pass against the bank is preferable. However, in these instances, the sharp bends in the concrete channel will result in upwelling at the corner downstream of the pass jet – a rounded corner profile would be better – and fish exiting upstream have to swim past the turbine entrance, therefore putting them in danger of getting swept back down the turbine. In this configuration, a fish pass on the river side would be preferable.
• Having trash screens upstream of the pass is very poor practice as it will deter fish from passing through them, especially at the specified gap of 130mm. If it is really necessary, the minimum gap should be 200mm, but preferably 250-300. Repositioning the fish pass to the inside would allow a design without a screen, especially if the dividing wall extended as far as the screen. This would then allow the pass to be also used as a downstream fish passage toute (see below).
• The pass exits should be no more than 2m downstream of the turbine exits, and the water velocity in the approach basin should be no more than 50 cm / sec, and the angle of injection back into the river no more than 30 degrees.

4. Archimedean screws will only provide safe passage for fish if the appropriate rubber bumper protection is included on the leading edges. The EA can advise on appropriate specifications. These have to be checked regularly and replaced if necessary. There also have to be no gaps between the blade edge and the outer casing. Although fish can pass through, there is evidence to suggest that an alternate bywash channel route, as mentioned above, will prevent delay.
5. There is no post-scheme monitoring specified. As a bare minimum there should be monitoring of the efficiency of the upstream fish passage.

Dr Alan Butterworth

i pointed out to the author of the post that he might like to get back in touch with Dr Alan Butterworth at the angling trust because in point one it states "I understand the eels have not been found recently, this is probably due to the past water quality of the Mersey tideway. Eels are very much threatened and one of the solutions to improve populations is opening access to more rivers to elvers, young eels",
eels are present in the river as myself and others have caught them, one of my captures was witnessed but sadly not photographed.
anyway an email has been sent and reply recieved and apparently the eel population is important information.
tight lines all
jerry
 
Last edited:
Come on its not rocket science, these things are a woeful waste of money.

Just do a little research and you'll see that the councilers will save 8 times as much CO2 if they invested the money in wind or insulation.

Just call the torrs hydro in New Mills and ask them about all the problems they had since starting.
 
with permission of steve pope here is a link to his website where an article has been written by phill hackett on the planning process and how to object to a planning application
http://www.stevepopebarbelfishing.co.uk/?p=1105
for anyone who hasnt come across it have a look round its the best blog/barbel site i,ve come across some very thought provoking articles and great advice not just from steve but other like minded anglers
tight lines
jerry
 
Last edited:
EA Email

This morning's email brings this:-
The Environment Agency is working to enable a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. We would like your help in looking at how to streamline our permitting process for small scale hydropower projects, while protecting and enhancing the environment. The review was commissioned by UK Government last summer.

The consultation opens for twelve weeks on Friday 19 March and closes on Friday 11 June and we want your contributions.

How to respond

The consultation can be found at:

English https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/ho/br/hydro/power

Welsh https://consult-cy.environment-agency.gov.uk/portal/ho/br/hydro/power

However, if you would prefer to send your response by post, please send it to:

Hydropower Permitting Consultation
Better Regulation Team
Environment Agency
Block 1
Government Buildings
Burghill Road, Westbury on Trym
Bristol BS10 6BF

Or email Hydropower_permitting@environment-agency.gov.uk

To request a hard copy, please email us at the same address.
More information on Hydropower can be found at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/32022.aspx
Click to expand...
 
Copied from another site with permission of glenn

A bit late i know but i only found out earlier, The town hall meeting is not on tonight, been canceled.
Its on the 16th of April now.

I did a few checks, the contact for the meeting or as it says, the directors from the nonexistent "Stockport Hydro ltd".

Mr. Ben Alexander is a Lib Dem councillor, the man pushing this through.
http://benalexander.mycouncillor.org.uk/

Steve Welsh is the owner for the company that makes the hydro kit
http://www.h2ope.org.uk/

Doug Everard, the money man.
http://www.powercapital.eu/PowerCMS/The-Team/Everard.aspx

I bet these 3 lads will be making a very nice butty out of this

Update: This is from the makers of the hydro, (Steve Welsh) website

Apologies: announcement of change to Stockport Hydro Launch

Due to positive interest from local politicians and funders who would be unable to participate in a Launch next week due to election period restrictions, Stockport Hydro have decided to have a Virtual Launch of their share offer via the web site H2ope - Home

Steve Welsh, MD of H2oPE and founder director of Stockport Hydro said: "We apologise for any inconvenience, but we felt it would be best to launch the share offer virtually via the H2oPE website and have an Open Evening at Stockport Town Hall later in May when all those who've expressed an interest in supporting the scheme can attend without restrictions. The Share Prospectus will be available from 6.30pm on Thursday 6 April. An announcement will be made shortly about the Open Evening. We really appreciate everyone's support to date and I'd urge people to download the prospectus and find out more about the share offer."

Stockport Hydro has been created to develop a number of hydro electric schemes,. Sites identified for development in 2010/11 are at Otterspool and Stringer weirs. Otterspool has a 54kW installed capacity and will generate approximately 209,000 kWh per year, enough to power around 50 houses, saving 90 tonnes of CO2 per year, or 3,500 tonnes over its estimated 40 year lifetime. Stringer has a 76kW installed capacity and will generate approximately 330MWh per year, enough to power around 70 houses and will save around142 tonnes of CO2 per year, or 5,600 tonnes over its lifetime.

The share offer gives individuals, local businesses and social investors the chance to become members of a ground breaking renewable electricity project that will provide clean, green electricity The plants, on the River Goyt, will be Greater Manchester's first community-owned scheme and surplus monies from the sale of hydro electricity will fund local environmental and community projects. Please forward to any contact you may have send the original invitation to. . Once again, apologies for any inconvenience and thanks for your support!

Steve Welsh 01706 883663 or email steve.welsh@h2ope.co.ukThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Steve welsh and Doug everard of stockport hydro ltd are also directors of the new mills hydro

cheers
jerry
 
Last edited:
Just like to put that I said that "Steve welsh and Doug everard of stockport hydro ltd are also directors of the new mills hydro"

I can not confirm this, but they were directly involved in the planning of the project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top