Rivers Orwell/Gipping

[toyboy]

Only a few here will be interested or even bother to read the ridiculously wordy report but I am posting this for those few. No doubt it will also attract the usual trolls too;
https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/mmofox5/fox/live/MMO_PUBLIC_REGISTER/search?area=8 Fox's are unhappy and have consulted the RYA but the work has started even though the MMO licence expired in March. They have simply re-newed it and I fail to understand how something that has expired can be re-newed without another investigation of the facts that were last looked at years ago before the failure of the preliminary works around Fox's. Try finding MLA/2015/00322 but be warned you ain't supposed to be able to. Without my link it would be virtually impossible.

 

[sailorman]

So are you saying that anybody who questions your campaigning posts is a Troll ?????

 

[Marmalade]

P9 to save people the trouble of wading through

 

[Stork_III]

P9 to save people the trouble of wading through

Or search MLA/2015/00322 in Advance search. Then start wading through.:encouragement:

 

[Habebty]

And the issue is what exactly?
From what I see, IBC want to build a flood protection barrier to protect Ipswich and part of the enabling works is some dredging around the new cut entrance.
Seems a sensible scheme, or is there an element I have missed?

 

[Guise]

And the issue is what exactly?
From what I see, IBC want to build a flood protection barrier to protect Ipswich and part of the enabling works is some dredging around the new cut entrance.
Seems a sensible scheme, or is there an element I have missed?

+1. Is there a problem?

 

[toyboy]

And the issue is what exactly?
From what I see, IBC want to build a flood protection barrier to protect Ipswich and part of the enabling works is some dredging around the new cut entrance.
Seems a sensible scheme, or is there an element I have missed?

No it isn't IBC, it is the Environment Agency who are in charge of flood protection and haven't a clue. When my lot arrived in the UK they came up the Orwell all the way to Rattlesden. Now it is difficult to get into the Gipping all because the government wants to build on the dock and the island site of the dock. All they ever seem to do is cause floods by interfering with our rivers. These are tidal waterways which should be protected especially by those of us who use them
This is how the Gipping was just over 40 years ago http://www.rivergippingtrust.org/Pages/RiverGipping1968.aspx
I went up the Gipping last year in a rubber dinghy and I couldn't get past Constantine Wear. The rivers are being killed by the EA whose boss has just resigned.

 

[sailorman]

No it isn't IBC, it is the Environment Agency who are in charge of flood protection and haven't a clue. When my lot arrived in the UK they came up the Orwell all the way to Rattlesden. Now it is difficult to get into the Gipping all because the government wants to build on the dock and the island site of the dock. All they ever seem to do is cause floods by interfering with our rivers. These are tidal waterways which should be protected especially by those of us who use them

Land at Dagworth Dock did they

 

[Habebty]

No it isn't IBC, it is the Environment Agency who are in charge of flood protection and haven't a clue. When my lot arrived in the UK they came up the Orwell all the way to Rattlesden. Now it is difficult to get into the Gipping all because the government wants to build on the dock and the island site of the dock. All they ever seem to do is cause floods by interfering with our rivers. These are tidal waterways which should be protected especially by those of us who use them

The barrier they want to build is a surge tide barrier, so will only be closed when a surge tide is forecast about twice a year.
They are not interfering with fluvial outflow. You have nothing to worry about. I wouldn't worry about trying to get up the Gipping to Stowmarket anymore. Those days are gone, but the increasing population and industry are protected from rain induced flooding by flow regulation and from incoming tidal surges by gates.
You seem to want the return to bucolic rivers with barges and force people to relocate in order to recreate past times. Times change, and so does the built environment.

In the last 30 odd years I have worked in the area, flooding in the Needham Market/Claydon/Sproughton flood plain seems to be a lot less.

The EA are generally very good at knowing how to manage water when funds permit. I would find something else to worry about,

 

[sailorman]

The barrier they want to build is a surge tide barrier, so will only be closed when a surge tide is forecast about twice a year.
They are not interfering with fluvial outflow. You have nothing to worry about. I wouldn't worry about trying to get up the Gipping to Stowmarket anymore. Those days are gone, but the increasing population and industry are protected from rain induced flooding by flow regulation and from incoming tidal surges by gates.
You seem to want the return to bucolic rivers with barges and force people to relocate in order to recreate past times. Times change, and so does the built environment.

In the last 30 odd years I have worked in the area, flooding in the Needham Market/Claydon/Sproughton flood plain seems to be a lot less.

The EA are generally very good at knowing how to manage water when funds permit. I would find something else to worry about,

 

[toyboy]

The barrier they want to build is a surge tide barrier, so will only be closed when a surge tide is forecast about twice a year.
They are not interfering with fluvial outflow. You have nothing to worry about. I wouldn't worry about trying to get up the Gipping to Stowmarket anymore. Those days are gone, but the increasing population and industry are protected from rain induced flooding by flow regulation and from incoming tidal surges by gates.
You seem to want the return to bucolic rivers with barges and force people to relocate in order to recreate past times. Times change, and so does the built environment.

In the last 30 odd years I have worked in the area, flooding in the Needham Market/Claydon/Sproughton flood plain seems to be a lot less.

The EA are generally very good at knowing how to manage water when funds permit. I would find something else to worry about,

That is what you are supposed to think. In reality it has nothing to do with tidal flooding. It is merely an attempt to make the dock available for building on from the ground level rather than having to leave the first floors empty or even two floors. As for protecting the Gipping, well that is so important people are paying for volunteering holidays repairing the locks. It is a remarkable cause and of course the area can be returned to what it used to be.

 

[Koeketiene]

It is a remarkable cause and of course the area can be returned to what it used to be.

It seems to me that 'the past' is the only place where you are really happy.

 

[Habebty]

That is what you are supposed to think. In reality it has nothing to do with tidal flooding. It is merely an attempt to make the dock available for building on from the ground level rather than having to leave the first floors empty or even two floors. As for protecting the Gipping, well that is so important people are paying for volunteering holidays repairing the locks. It is a remarkable cause and of course the area can be returned to what it used to be.

Yes, it is to protect the docks (and existing developments) from flooding so they can be redeveloped.......what is wrong with that? Gates that protect from tidal surge are a good thing. Why would anyone leave the bottom floors empty if they can be protected. Would you have fought the Thames Barrier?
My only issue is the dubious architecture , but hey, it's better than leaving derelict brownfield sites an empty wasteland, and building on greenfield sites??

Restoring a canal is a lovely thing, but it is not important, (bit like heritage railways really) but who knows, the Ipswich floodgates and upstream velocity control structures/weirs etc. may be replaced with proper lock gates, if the money ever becomes available.....one day?
Perhaps one day the docks may revert to a tree lined promenade as they were in the 1890s?

I think you are picking the wrong fight, progress will always happen in the built environment, you just need to ensure the quality is the best that can be afforded.

 

[toyboy]

Yes, it is to protect the docks (and existing developments) from flooding so they can be redeveloped.......what is wrong with that? Gates that protect from tidal surge are a good thing. Why would anyone leave the bottom floors empty if they can be protected. Would you have fought the Thames Barrier?
My only issue is the dubious architecture , but hey, it's better than leaving derelict brownfield sites an empty wasteland, and building on greenfield sites??

Restoring a canal is a lovely thing, but it is not important, (bit like heritage railways really) but who knows, the Ipswich floodgates and upstream velocity control structures/weirs etc. may be replaced with proper lock gates, if the money ever becomes available.....one day?
Perhaps one day the docks may revert to a tree lined promenade as they were in the 1890s?

I think you are picking the wrong fight, progress will always happen in the built environment, you just need to ensure the quality is the best that can be afforded.

There is a big problem. Firstly we are paying for Associated British Ports to have its property improved. Secondly the MMO licence expired in March. Thirdly we lose the River Gipping which is extremely valuable locally. Before the dock was built the Gipping used to run straight through what is now the dock. In 1800 it was decided to dredge the river as it had silted up and the dock was made at the same time. As the river bed belongs to IBC it was guaranteed by the Ipswich Dock Acts people would always be able to access the banks of the New Cut and the dock. The present owners have closed much of this now and if the river eventually silts up again they will be laughing as they can then build even more tower blocks while those with boats can just moor elsewhere but the local lose out because nobody wants to fight other then me.

 

[toyboy]

It seems to me that 'the past' is the only place where you are really happy.

If the past is not protected there will be little future and you will probably moor elsewhere but local people lose out.

 

[PeterWright]

There is a big problem. Firstly we are paying for Associated British Ports to have its property improved. Secondly the MMO licence expired in March. .

The first of those two statements is a patent nonsense. It's like saying the Thames Barrier was built entirely to protect the redundant gasworks at Greenwich (which has since become the O2 arena). If you bother to read the EA application, you will see that these works are to protect the property of numerous individuals and companies from tidal surges over the coming 100 years - a proper use of public funds. As Habebty has intimated EA funding for such works is very limited and the EA are careful to spend only on those projects which bring benefit to a large number. You can be sure that IBC support this project because most of those protected are in the Borough.

The second is a big so what? The licence expired before work started, so the EA have re applied as is required by this ott, EU mandated, legislation. They're following due legal process. It's totally unsurprising that the MMO have approved the new application, because they approved the original one and nothing has changed materially since then.

IMHO, these works will benefit the river Gipping. You're not the only one with local roots, although, like most of us, you're clearly an invader. My family, in the last century, rented out skiffs and other craft at the Palace Boatyard and I would be very happy to see more leisure use of the river. However, I do not believe it's an appropriate objective for state funding when we can't find enough funds to protect citizens from catastrophic flooding of their homes. The volunteer model used so effectively to restore the Kennet & Avon canal is more suited to this task and, as you say, already in hand by a dedicated bunch who have my admiration.

You may wish to ponder on the question of why nobody wants to fight other than you - it may be because the project enjoys widespread support.

 

[FullCircle]

The first of those two statements is a patent nonsense. It's like saying the Thames Barrier was built entirely to protect the redundant gasworks at Greenwich (which has since become the O2 arena). If you bother to read the EA application, you will see that these works are to protect the property of numerous individuals and companies from tidal surges over the coming 100 years - a proper use of public funds. As Habebty has intimated EA funding for such works is very limited and the EA are careful to spend only on those projects which bring benefit to a large number. You can be sure that IBC support this project because most of those protected are in the Borough.

The second is a big so what? The licence expired before work started, so the EA have re applied as is required by this ott, EU mandated, legislation. They're following due legal process. It's totally unsurprising that the MMO have approved the new application, because they approved the original one and nothing has changed materially since then.

IMHO, these works will benefit the river Gipping. You're not the only one with local roots, although, like most of us, you're clearly an invader. My family, in the last century, rented out skiffs and other craft at the Palace Boatyard and I would be very happy to see more leisure use of the river. However, I do not believe it's an appropriate objective for state funding when we can't find enough funds to protect citizens from catastrophic flooding of their homes. The volunteer model used so effectively to restore the Kennet & Avon canal is more suited to this task and, as you say, already in hand by a dedicated bunch who have my admiration.

You may wish to ponder on the question of why nobody wants to fight other than you - it may be because the project enjoys widespread support.

Well said. I agree that an effort like that of the canals improvements is more approriate. It is a small scale restoration and will not lead to widespread use like the Avon & Kennet, but it will benefit locals.
My primary school was built on the infill of the River Effra. I doubt anybody in the area even knows what the Effra was in these days.

 

[sailorman]

Well said. I agree that an effort like that of the canals improvements is more approriate. It is a small scale restoration and will not lead to widespread use like the Avon & Kennet, but it will benefit locals.
My primary school was built on the infill of the River Effra. I doubt anybody in the area even knows what the Effra was in these days.

Was it an approved skool Jim

 

[FullCircle]

Was it an approved skool Jim

No, but it was Victorian with outside toilets without a roof. Now a housing estate. Approved skool was a lot later.

 

[Bru]

Toyboy also repeatedly makes the mistake of assuming that ancient rights (of access, navigation etc.) are forever and for all time

They're not as I know all too well after decades of involvement with both the inland waterways and public rights of way*

Rights of way, land access and rights of navigation are routinely abrogated and superceded by subsequent legislation, planning decisions and both local and national government orders under a variety of legislative processes

And that is assuming that such claimed ancient rights were ever formalised in the first place.

In the case of the Gipping, the right of navigation, created when an Act to improve the navigation was made in the 1700s, was formally and legally extinguished when in 1932 the then Trustees, unable to meet their maintenance obligations under the 1789 Act enabling the navigation, applied for the Act to be revoked. Ownership of the river bed passed back the original riparian owners (or their descendants etc.) and that was that. It would be nonsense to claim that there is any right of navigation on the Gipping today as the Revocation Order trumps any other legal basis for doing so

And furthermore, the Gipping / Orwell / Ure (take your pick) that the Saxons, Danes and Norsemen used to reach inland, possibly as far as Rattlesden (where my mothers family has its roots by the way so I'll claim to be a local too ) or even further, disappeared in the late 18th century when the navigation to Stowmarket was improved with the construction of 15 locks and associated works. Prior to that, it was a typical unimproved English river. (Yes, it was used for navigation but only when the river levels were suitable and with considerable difficulty). Was one of Toyboy's ancestors amongst the vociferous objectors to the improvement scheme I wonder? It was far from universally popular on the Gipping or elsewhere and seen as ruining the river, risking local livelihoods and so on. There's nothing new, only history repeating itself

As far as Ipswich Docks is concerned, there is a Restricted Byway around the road to the East and North. That means the public have a right of access on foot, bicycle, horse and by vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. In other words, you can drive a horse and cart around there but you can't drive a car round it! (Bizarre I know but there is a sound reason for the definition of a Restricted Byway which I'll bore you all with if you insist). There is a due legal process to apply to change the status of a Public Right of Way but the chances of changing a Restricted Byway to a Byway Open to All Traffic are virtually nil (as a starting point, you would have to be able to prove categorically that the route was used as of right by motor traffic between the wars. Proving the "as of right" bit is almost always impossible)

Again, that is the current legal position and it trumps any claims to older more ancient rights. It is a basic principal of Public Rights of Way legislation that it it isn't marked on the definitive map it is not a public right of way. As I said above, the procedures are in place, and quite straightforward if you've got the evidence, to have PRoW added to the definitive map or upgraded if they're wrong. I've successfully added, or I should say to be accurate played a major part in adding, a significant mileage of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways to the definitive maps of Northants, Beds and Cambs. We were much less successful with Byways Open to All Traffic (and between you, me and the gatepost I buried the evidence for a couple that probably would have been successful because the lanes in question were quite simply unsuitable for use by 4x4s) and following the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2002 it became (as alluded to above) all but impossible to create BOATs with the introduction of RBs

For those who don't know and do care, if indeed there are any such, the framework of our national rights of way network is actually very modern. It dates back only to 1953, prior to which the right of the public to pass and repass, to use the standard legal jargon, over a path, lane or road a dependent on thousands upon thousands of different Acts and documents. The 1953 Rights of Way Act created the system whereby each County Council maintains a Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way which, as it's name implies, is definitive. In order to create the initial DM, each parish was required to make a return stating where and of what status the rights of way in the parish were at that precise moment in time. It is remarkable how few carriageways made it onto the DM! For the most part, if an old road hadn't been surfaced by then, it went on the map as a bridleway at best, or a footpath or in many a case it didn't make it onto the map at all (because the people in the parish making the returns were often the local landowners who had a vested interest in not having RoW across their land). The Ramblers Association (cough, splutter, spit) and horsey groups and even the much maligned green laners etc. have spent the decades since using the due process to correct the errors

* For those who don't know, I have been in the past both a trustee of the Inland Waterways Association and the Rights of Way Practice Officer for the Green Lane Association)