Proposed mussel fishery in the Stour

Have any of you read the management plan for this proposed muscle farm? They envisage harvesting approx 2000 tons of muscles per year. That isn't a cottage industry its a major commercial activity. Not only will anchoring be banned within the muscle beds, active measures will be taken to control predator species. That means swathes of crab pots throughout the area plus whatever starfish mops are. The fishermen that use the Stour are already up in arms about this proposal to take over their patch and rather than just shrugging our shoulders I think all the clubs in the area should be making representations to DEFRA to ensure any impact on existing users of the area is minimised if indeed it is approved at all. Just why should a commercial company be allowed to march in and take over an ammenity that is used by hundereds if not thousands of people each year?
 
Hi
Received this from the CA today........

At a meeting yesterday of the Harwich Haven Authority Leisure Vessels Navigation Sub-Committee it was clear that all the yacht and sailing clubs represented were opposed to the development.
The Cruising Association will be making a submission to the consultation process though the medium of the RATS group.
Official bodies DO take account of the views of individuals as well as those of organisations and the more they receive on a subject the more weight they carry.
Note that responses to the consultation have to be received BY Sunday 5 APRIL 2015, so the matter is urgent.
Respond to:
pgs@parkinsonwright.co.uk or
shaun.mclennan@defra.gsi.gov.uk preferably both.

hope I'm not infringing forum rules passing this on

Regards
Boz
 
i have written to both parties as has swmbo

i have a prepaired letter if anybody wants an easy option of copy n paste & adapt as req

Dear Sirs
River Stour Mussel Proposals​
Parkinson Wright Reference PGS/LCD/69739​
​
I write to record my concerns and objections to the proposals that seek to reserve many zones of the River Stour for the benefit of a single concern’s advantage over many others to grow mussels commercially.

1. Exclusions zones that disadvantage the many for the advantage of one concern.
In my view it is unacceptable to grant rights that have existed for many, many years and are being enjoyed by the many to an individual concern allowing their single interest to take precedence over many others.


2. The proposal will result in a diminution of the current amenity value
I have enjoyed the River Stour for some [fill as rellevent] years. It is largely an unspoilt and undeveloped river. It is enjoyed by many both from the local area and by foreign visitors. This river presents a unique place where they may currently anchor overnight during the sailing season and enjoy the amenity. The leisure boating industry is a vital component in the East Anglian tourist and economic proposition and the River Stour with its current attractions and unique amenity is an important jewel in that crown.


3. Concentration to a Smaller area
The many zones sought by the applicant will restrict the area where boats may anchor for short periods with the resulting effect that anchoring will be concentrated into the remaining space available. This over concentration may have detrimental effects by upsetting the current balance leading to even more anchoring restrictions.


4. The proposal will hamper and impede navigation on the river
Sailing vessels need to tack upwind and use the width of the river. They will try to avoid the main channels where the tide is running the strongest against them. This means they will sail in the shallower water outside the main channels. This proposal will impede and restrict the navigation rights enjoyed on this river for centuries.

5. Other Concerns
The Stour and Orwell Estuaries Scheme of Management (2010) raises several other concerns with respect to commercial shellfish farming operations:-
• Physical damage to sediment structure through abrasion.
• Biological disturbance through extraction of species, possibly resulting in reduced food availability for other species.
• Biological disturbance through possible introduction of non-native species, and through disturbance of non-target species such as worms and other molluscan shellfish in substrate.
• Noise and visual disturbance through human presence.
Yours Faithfully,


Defra Shellfish Aquaculture Team
Area 8A
17 Smith Square
London
SW1p 3JR

and

Quality Solicitors Parkinson Wright
(quoting PGS/LCD/6973
4 Abbey Lane Court
Evesham
WR11 4BY
 
Last edited:
RYA email

Dear Sailorman & Kurrowong Kid,

Further to your correspondence with Gus Lewis at the RYA, I wanted to make you aware that the RYA has submitted a response to the Draft River Stour Order consultation and in it raised the following issues:

· The lack of recognition of recreation on the River Stour in the Management Plan and Environmental Statement
· The ability to continue to lay racing marks in the proposed areas
· The concern about increased vessel movements and how they could affect recreational boaters
· The negative effects of potential buoyage (marking the plots, crab pots and dredging areas)
· Crab potting for predators and how this could affect under-keel clearance

Although we have no objection to the principle of the proposed locations being designated as mussel
Fisheries, we do have significant concerns over the proposed operation of the fisheries,
including the laying of marker buoys, the laying of crab pots and the increase in vessel traffic. We noted in our response that in the absence of more information from the applicant in relation to these concerns, the RYA has no alternative but to object to the proposed Order being granted at this stage.

Kind regards,
Alana

Alana Ward
Planning and Environmental Officer
Royal Yachting Association
T: 02380 604228 | M: 07766 136564 | E: alana.ward@rya.org.uk
 
Just received this from Wash Mussels Ltd Solicitors.
Looks like anchoring is OK.........


"Thank you for confirming your concerns with regard to navigation and anchorage in relation to the proposed mussel fishery order.

I am pleased to confirm the reasons on the basis of which the management plan and environmental assessment concluded that there should be no adverse implications for recreational sailing or other existing uses of the estuary.

Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 provides that the public rights of navigation and anchorage apply to the several order beds: therefore there can be no restriction on anchorage of any vessel, and access for navigation purposes to the waters over the several order beds are not affected in any way by the order.

I confirm leisure and commercial vessels can moor with immunity from claim in several shellfish beds by virtue of section 7.

Wash Mussels Limited wish to keep the use of marker buoys to the minimum which may be directed by DEFRA under the legislation. "
 
Lazy Kipper said:
So there never was a problem and commercial and leisure users can exist side by side. Excellent.
Click to expand...

If only LK. My experience of fighting for rights of way have shown me many instances where new laws are instantly made when required by investors. I instinctively oppose any commercial exploitation of any tidal waterway. I will continue to oppose this enterprise.
 
I might have got the wrong end of the stick but are they saying anchoring will not be affected? If so, I can not see that working. Up the Pyefleet and behind Osea there are very clear notices forbidding anchoring on oyster beds. I can not see a commercial shellfish company being happy with my motor sailer anchoring, or settling at low water on their investment.

Have I missed something?
 
I seem to recall (chart not with me now) that originally there were restrictions on anchoring in Pyefleet then there was a review of the law and the chart was amended to read, No Grounding / Taking the Bottom as anchoring did not harm the fisheries but landing on them crushed them.

Having said that, if the fisheries are flat racks stocked and picked by hand I would imagine they will not like you 'hooking up' on their frames.

So where harvesting is by bottom dredge there shouldn't be any problem with anchoring.

I would suspect the signs have the same validity as "Trespassers will be Prosecuted" in the UK.

Although "Trespassers will be Shot" in the USA does grab the attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top