• 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 Lambourn....

I am really surprised that people still think the EA are there to protect the Enviroment..
Keep writing those petitions and Martin Salter will save the Day..
Hilarious if it was not so serious..
I will say it again at the expense of probably boring people, Profit comes before the environment and theres no organisation currently in this country that have any power or voice that matters..
Keep paying £27 a year to the EA ( like I have ) as it helps towards Flood prevention ( destruction of the Riverbank ), making a better place for Otters, helping Companies maximise profits ( lowering the standards of pollution levels in Rivers ) oh and of course restocking venues after the damage has already been done, usually because they have helped create it....
Value for Money?..
 
Spot on Craig.
Could we not in some way register a vote of no confidence in the EA? I might be talking complete nonsense here but as we all have to pay for our licence, and that money is supposed to be invested in maintaining and improving the aquatic environments that we all fish, then surely they have a duty to uphold this be it legal or morally? They should at the very least have to be totally transparent in what they spend the money on.
 
Howard....... What response did the EA give you when you made your representations to them on behalf of the Barbel Society? I trust it was you?? Thank you.
 
Just for clarity, (probably clarity is the wrong word), but anyway, as they propose to pump in treated sewage how harmful would that be to the aquatic environment?

I guess the critical thing in such a chalk stream would be the insect small invertebrate and plant growth well being to ensure healthy fish stocks.

Can anyone say if such a discharge would damage this? I do know that past and present I have fished rivers that have had such discharges have held good stocks, in particular Roach.

However not as in this case chalk streams.
 
Neil Smart said:
Just for clarity, (probably clarity is the wrong word), but anyway, as they propose to pump in treated sewage how harmful would that be to the aquatic environment?

I guess the critical thing in such a chalk stream would be the insect small invertebrate and plant growth well being to ensure healthy fish stocks.

Can anyone say if such a discharge would damage this? I do know that past and present I have fished rivers that have had such discharges have held good stocks, in particular Roach.

However not as in this case chalk streams.
Click to expand...

I think the term 'treated' is slightly misleading Neil, as far I know a Klargester (although there are different types) reduces the BOD of the sewage so as not to cause point source pollution e.g. an instant fish kill, but does little or nothing to reduce the nitrate and phosphate within the sewage or indeed all the heavy metals that are associated with human sewage waste.
 
Neil, you old philistine :D...you surely don't imagine that there would be all this fuss if this wasn't a serious matter do you? This would not be 'treated' sewage as we know it. In order to make more profit, the developers have gone back on the original planning consent, which included piping the sewage from the development to the main sewage pipeline. They are now going to install a 'Klargester' system, which will only give rudimentary treatment to the sewage, and it is the effluent from this 'secondary' treatment plant that will be discharged directly into the Lambourn.

Top condition chalk streams are an utterly different environment to the type of waterway we are more used to fishing, an ecosystem which supports a very rich but specialized flora and fauna. To release this type of waste into such a wonderful chalk stream continuously would destroy much of that uniqueness...very sad indeed.

Cheers, Dave.
 
David Gauntlett said:
Neil, you old philistine :D...you surely don't imagine that there would be all this fuss if this wasn't a serious matter do you? This would not be 'treated' sewage as we know it. In order to make more profit, the developers have gone back on the original planning consent, which included piping the sewage from the development to the main sewage pipeline. They are now going to install a 'Klargester' system, which will only give rudimentary treatment to the sewage, and it is the effluent from this 'secondary' treatment plant that will be discharged directly into the Lambourn.

Top condition chalk streams are an utterly different environment to the type of waterway we are more used to fishing, an ecosystem which supports a very rich but specialized flora and fauna. To release this type of waste into such a wonderful chalk stream continuously would destroy much of that uniqueness...very sad indeed.

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...
Dave,
I asked the question as I am concerned, no need to question my loyalty to the cause. However the rhetoric we use as anglers will always be biased towards keeping such a river in its prisine state.
Others might argue that new housing has priority over a chalk stream, I do not and I am confident that we will prevail.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
I think the term 'treated' is slightly misleading Neil, as far I know a Klargester (although there are different types) reduces the BOD of the sewage so as not to cause point source pollution e.g. an instant fish kill, but does little or nothing to reduce the nitrate and phosphate within the sewage or indeed all the heavy metals that are associated with human sewage waste.[/QUOTE

Thank you Joe,
A grim scenario, hopefully with pressure this prposal will be defeated.
Click to expand...
 
That's great news. 'People power' at work, but how the bloody hell did the EA see fit to grant permission? Someone there needs to be held to account.
 
This a great news, even with the note of caution about a possible appeal given the EA's bizarre decision to grant a permit.

I did also get a decent reply from the local MP yesterday who reiterated his passion for campaigning on behalf of rivers and especially chalk streams. He also expressed (more reservedly perhaps than we might!) frustration at the EA in the approach they have taken. Apparently the EA have pointed out that the effluent from this particular development will be very small compared with an already consented release from a sewage treatment plant further upstream at Great Shefford.

He maintains that he will continue to campaign on this matter and I will be monitoring the situation and hold him to that promise if events go backwards.
 
Because the councillors rejected means nothing, they are not qualified to make judgement or decisions, they just Vote with their hands and its looks good on them with the people.

However back in he real world, the policy makers, planners, qualified experts have the final say.
 
Blimey, Tony, your three posts today have got me wanting to slash my wrists.:)

Surely even the most pessimistic of us might see this is a step in the right direction. In local government, councillors, advised by the officers, do set the policies, and the officers implement them, which is what seems to have happened here. The outrage over this has clearly influenced their thinking, which can only be a good thing, surely.
 
Steve

I just say it how I see it and its not normally far from the truth.

How many times have you known applications of all sorts get Voted out by Councillors only to be over turned at appeal, its a game to make people feel like their being listened to.

At the end of the day, the Authorities Rule and do what they need to do and development goes ahead, nothing stops it.
 
Tony Smith said:
Steve

I just say it how I see it and its not normally far from the truth.

How many times have you known applications of all sorts get Voted out by Councillors only to be over turned at appeal, its a game to make people feel like their being listened to.

At the end of the day, the Authorities Rule and do what they need to do and development goes ahead, nothing stops it.
Click to expand...

Very valid point i think Tony. After all its the EA, not the "protect the environment agency". Small p politics perhaps, but politics none the less. I truly hope peoples objections are adhered to and not just given the Lip-service that they usually get and then the original plan steamrolled through using bull****, waffle and loads of hot air.

Stephen
 
housing development

This more like the reason while hundreds of people are objecting in hope that if they can't discharge sewage into the river then the whole thing will go away.

NIMBYS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top