Torsa no longer an island

[dutyhog]

I can just imagine Irene giving her opinion on it, she was never shy to tell you what she thought of folk.

I've just checked for planning permisions at https://publicaccess.argyll-bute.gov.uk/online-applications and don't see any for the postcode PA34 4TZ, which I think covers the island.

Cadzows run all the herd around there.

 

[waterbuoy]

To try and clear up some misconceptions with regard to some of the posts on here:

• The land on which the causeway has been raised was already an existing ford, and sat above Mean Low Water Springs. It is therefore regarded as 'foreshore' from a legislative perspective.
• 'The Crown' owns approximately half of the foreshore around the UK coastline - in Scotland this is managed by Crown Estate Scotland.
• The foreshore on which the link between Torsa and Luing has been raised is actually 'non-Crown' - ie it is privately owned. Consequently, whilst 'of interest' there is nothing which Crown Estate Scotland can do, unless it extends below MLWS which I do not think is the case.
• The relevant issue here is that the works DO require a Marine Scotland Works Licence as that is necessary for all works below MHWS; this has not been obtained.
• If the works extend above MHWS then Planning Permission may also be required.

Yesterday I was contacted by the person who was responsible for the works being carried out and was belatedly asked for advice. I suggested that they contact Marine Scotland first thing on Monday to discuss the options. The individual was, at that time, accepting of the fact that the causeway is likely to to require removal, and even offered to do this. However, I suggested that to do so would potentially compound the situation as further 'unauthorised' works would be undertaken.

The individual is now aware of the importance of the channel to various water users (kayakers, paddleboarders and yachties who transit through it in their dinghies/tenders).

With regard to other specific points made in this thread:

The islet north of Ardfern which is connected to the land: this is a historic causeway which existed at the time the Puffers (coastal steamers, think of ParaHandy) as the east side of the islet was both steep and deep and was therefore a place at which the puffers could be unloaded;

The island which lies immediately to the south east of the Yacht Centre at Ardfern: It is highly unlikley that the causeway to this will be raised as (a) the owners of the island like the fact that it is an island, and (b) the throughflow of current is important to help prevent silting up around the marina slip;

Craobh Haven: The connection of the islets to the mainland dates back to the 1980s and all necessary permissions and consents were obtained and are still relevant;

Ardinamir: It is indeed possible that the closure of the channel by the causeway will affect siltation on either side. However, I think this is likely to be less significant than the closure of what was previously a navigable channel.

Hope this helps.

 

[bikedaft]

Thank you for your informative post.

The bit i am genuinely puzzled about is the statement that the pre existing ford was above MHWS - i have been over it at half ebb tide (in a rubber dinghy).

 

[waterbuoy]

Apologies - meant to say above Mean Low Water Springs, but below Mean High Water Springs! I have edited the original post so as not to make your comment look daft!

 

[bikedaft]

Apologies - meant to say above Mean Low Water Springs, but below Mean High Water Springs! I have edited the original post so as not to make your comment look daft!

Thanks!☺

 

[sarabande]

Neat work Waterbuoy, timely, and well explained.


Would you like a job in the MMO around Plymouth ?

 

[WoodyP]

To try and clear up some misconceptions with regard to some of the posts on here:

• The land on which the causeway has been raised was already an existing ford, and sat above Mean Low Water Springs. It is therefore regarded as 'foreshore' from a legislative perspective.
• 'The Crown' owns approximately half of the foreshore around the UK coastline - in Scotland this is managed by Crown Estate Scotland.
• The foreshore on which the link between Torsa and Luing has been raised is actually 'non-Crown' - ie it is privately owned. Consequently, whilst 'of interest' there is nothing which Crown Estate Scotland can do, unless it extends below MLWS which I do not think is the case.
• The relevant issue here is that the works DO require a Marine Scotland Works Licence as that is necessary for all works below MHWS; this has not been obtained.
• If the works extend above MHWS then Planning Permission may also be required.

Yesterday I was contacted by the person who was responsible for the works being carried out and was belatedly asked for advice. I suggested that they contact Marine Scotland first thing on Monday to discuss the options. The individual was, at that time, accepting of the fact that the causeway is likely to to require removal, and even offered to do this. However, I suggested that to do so would potentially compound the situation as further 'unauthorised' works would be undertaken.

The individual is now aware of the importance of the channel to various water users (kayakers, paddleboarders and yachties who transit through it in their dinghies/tenders).

With regard to other specific points made in this thread:

The islet north of Ardfern which is connected to the land: this is a historic causeway which existed at the time the Puffers (coastal steamers, think of ParaHandy) as the east side of the islet was both steep and deep and was therefore a place at which the puffers could be unloaded;

The island which lies immediately to the south east of the Yacht Centre at Ardfern: It is highly unlikley that the causeway to this will be raised as (a) the owners of the island like the fact that it is an island, and (b) the throughflow of current is important to help prevent silting up around the marina slip;

Craobh Haven: The connection of the islets to the mainland dates back to the 1980s and all necessary permissions and consents were obtained and are still relevant;

Ardinamir: It is indeed possible that the closure of the channel by the causeway will affect siltation on either side. However, I think this is likely to be less significant than the closure of what was previously a navigable channel.

Hope this helps.

Coming on here with knowledge. You've just ruined the thread?

 

[steve yates]

Doesnt change the fact that some bugger may have arbitarily decided to block a navigable waterway .

 

[Romeo]

Yesterday I was contacted by the person who was responsible for the works being carried out and was belatedly asked for advice. I suggested that they contact Marine Scotland first thing on Monday to discuss the options. The individual was, at that time, accepting of the fact that the causeway is likely to to require removal, and even offered to do this. However, I suggested that to do so would potentially compound the situation as further 'unauthorised' works would be undertaken.

The individual is now aware of the importance of the channel to various water users (kayakers, paddleboarders and yachties who transit through it in their dinghies/tenders)....

Hope this helps.

Excellent, well done waterbuoy, and thank you for giving that advice. I am glad you were able to advise him of the importance to various water users. I suspect Marine Scotland will be aware of that when they look at their inbox on Monday morning, so good idea for your fella to contact them before they contact him. Might be an idea to pre-empt the call from Argyll and Bute Council planning department too.

 

[penfold]

Did the person explain why they did it given the owners of the house and island apparently know nothing of it? Rather like waking up and discovering your neighbour has built an earth ramp over your garden wall because your drive was better than his.

Apologies - meant to say above Mean Low Water Springs, but below Mean High Water Springs! I have edited the original post so as not to make your comment look daft!

 

[Chae_73]

Presumably to move livestock on and off the island?

 

[waterbuoy]

Correct ref livestock.

WRT Penfold's question, the issue of the holiday house was not discussed on Saturday as the miscreant had indicated that it was for agricultural purposes.

 

[Romeo]

It was initially (wrongly) thought that the owner of the only house on the island had asked for the works. However those responsible for the house have subsequently made clear that they are very much against the work that has been carried out which makes it even more surprising that the work was instructed in the first place. Hopefully the person instructing the works will organise for the causeway to be removed and the ford reinstated in such a way that will not affect navigation or the amenity of those staying on Torsa. With Waterbuoy's help he may even learn a positive life lesson from the experience. Think twice, cut once, and consider the effect of your actions on others.

 

[waterbuoy]

Thanks Romeo
I have just had a further email exchange with the person who carried out the works and he has contacted Marine Scotland as suggested, and is awaiting a reply from them. I have also contacted the Licencing Team and have been told that they are on the case.
He also sent me some time/date stamped photos which show the causeway/ford beginning to cover at 1300 hrs on Sunday, at which time the charted tide height was around 1.4m. High water level is typically between 2.5 and 3m to put this into context.
I have explained (elsewhere) that the channel is particularly important immediately after low water when flows in Cuan Sound can be at their highest around Cleit Rock, so any reduction in navigable depth at this time is likely to be of concern.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Excellent, well done waterbuoy, and thank you for giving that advice. I am glad you were able to advise him of the importance to various water users. I suspect Marine Scotland will be aware of that when they look at their inbox on Monday morning, so good idea for your fella to contact them before they contact him. Might be an idea to pre-empt the call from Argyll and Bute Council planning department too.

Maybe it’s less important than is thought. How many paddle through there a year, not a lot. Perhaps the causeway would make the business activities more productive for an area that already has challenges. Personally speaking, if the flow rate can be maintained, then why should those who live and work there not have easy access at all states of the tide?

Words are cheap, the person who wanted the causeway has it in place and sounding conciliatory can be a tactic. What may happen now is a lot of tooth sucking and handwringing with wondering what is the best way to reach a compromise or reinstate. Meanwhile, the folks that wanted will carry on using it. They should get their digger out and remove the causeway and reinstate ford, if they are really bothered about their actions. I doubt they are.

I will donate £100 to the RNLI station on Islay if it is removed this year.

 

[penfold]

Yes, because letting people do what they like is totally what should be done.

Correct ref livestock.

WRT Penfold's question, the issue of the holiday house was not discussed on Saturday as the miscreant had indicated that it was for agricultural purposes.

That makes no sense at all, cattle can swim perfectly well and did swim from many of the inner Hebrides to the mainland when it was time to take them to market.

 

[waterbuoy]

Understood, but I suspect it was rather more convenient for the farmer if he was able to walk/quad bike to his beasts rather than having to (a) swim, or (b) wait for low tide.

I'm bowing out of the thread for now but will update when/if there is any further news.

 

[wully1]

Maybe it’s less important than is thought. How many paddle through there a year, not a lot.

More than you’d think...it’s a good , safe place to practice paddling in eddies/tide lines etc.

But the potential damage to the ecology of the area is of more concern.

 

[PAPOFCARDEN]

I have a mooring in Ardinamir Bay and the passage has been completely blocked. You can walk across the causeay at High Water.
I'm totally gutted at this action which I believe is to facilitate shooting grouse on Torsa. Already Ardinamir Bay has begun to silt up and this important storm refuge may no longer be fit for purpose. It's weird to see the effects of blocking such an important channel with weird high and low waters due to the change of sea level between the Cuan Sound and Ardinamir Bay to the south making entry into the bay doubly difficult at low water. Rumour has it will go to planning and be be retrospectively accepted. Please all you lovers if wild places write to Argyle and Bute Council stating your objections.

 

[PAPOFCARDEN]

Understood, but I suspect it was rather more convenient for the farmer if he was able to walk/quad bike to his beasts rather than having to (a) swim, or (b) wait for low tide.

I'm bowing out of the thread for now but will update when/if there is any further news.

Nothing to do with grazing cows. The illegal causeay is to allow shooters across to shoot grouse.