Featured post

10,000,000 Miles in a Nissan Leaf?

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Deja Vu

Well, here we are again (biiig sigh....) . It's only three years - and then some - since we originally applied for water licences and only eight months since the Environment Agency signed the court order instructing them to re-determine the water licence at Avoncliff without further delay. that's a whole 8 months to place public notices in two local newspapers.

The slowness with which The Environment Agency has addressed the matter has made glaciers look like rushing mountain streams.

For a while there (April - October 2012), the EA were actually "processing" the wrong applications - yes, you read that right - the wrong applications. We looked at the communications they sent us and had to struggle with them to get it through to them that  "no.... that isn't what we applied for". The EA were also actually asserting that they weren't constrained by the High Court Order!

We would ask you to get your views in to The Environment Agency ASAP on the two schemes under consideration (only one scheme will go ahead). Our table of comparative merits of the two schemes is over on the web site.

If you are minded to get your ha'porth in:
Application Reference Numbers:
North Mill: EARL NPS/WR/002511 (link to EA web site)
Weavers's Mill: TARRANT NPS/WR/001709 (link to EA web site)

email:
PSC-WaterResources@environment-agency.gov.uk
application general enquiries telephone:
Ben Johnstone 01392-352337
ben.johnstone@environment-agency.gov.uk

If you do snail-mail:
The Environment Agency
Water Resources Permitting & Resource Centre,
Water Resources Team,
Quadrant 2,
99 Parkway Avenue,
Parkway Business Park,
Sheffield
S9 4WF



The delays and mistakes (and worse) emanating from the EA have been piling up for three years - is this a leopard that can change it's spots? Yep - we're biased :-)

Since the Environment Agency has had the applications in hand for three years+ essentially unchanged we believe it should take considerably less than the statutory 120 days (which has been flagrantly ignored by EA officials in the past anyway) or even the new  Penfold Review rules at 91 days to arrive at a determination in this matter. To wilfully extend determination out to the legal limit poses the risk that any scheme at Avoncliff will be delayed potentially until 2014 - we leave the reader to do the arithmetic.

The Environment Agency will not even formally commit to a time frame for this licence determination.    

27 comments:

  1. There are better qualified people in the job centre that would have made a better job than this mess! three years and no time frame put these people in the job centre.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes i agree but they cant all be daft! they may now be following the consent order? after all we all live in hope.Sadly i fear they will do anything to stop you getting it even if it is wrong, as their lawyer says changing the paper work AGAIN lets hope they have seen the error of their ways.COME ON EA GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME. Paul B-ON-A

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, what you're saying is these are the *same/identical* applications as originally submitted 3 years ago and the EA won't give a timescale for a decision even though they are legally obliged to?

    Something's seriously out of whack here. The utter shambles of water licencing as perpetrated by the EA needs sorting out and some P45s put in the post. Serial incompetence on a stick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always said solicitors were legal criminals even government bodies employ them. Solicitor JEREMY GRAYDON should have stopped this, not gambled with public money. Its clear from his emails that is what he has done. TRY GOING TO THE LAW SOCIETY get him struck off.

      Delete
  4. Omnishambles comes to mind. After all it was civil servants/public servants who invented the omnishambles it is therefore their sworn duty to perpetuate one. They will ivent more proceedures and workload so that they can justify their jobs and not be made redundant. Some one in government must realise that this Quango, yes the EA is a Quango, has to be done away with. Keep the people who work in the fields and rivers but dump all the office whallahs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Weavers mill tells the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY he is financially constrained and if he damages the WEIR and it fails he cannot repair it due to lack of access heavy plant. So you gave him a licence TO DEVASTATE THE ENVIRONMENT 2 MILES UPSTREAM AND 10 DOWNSTREAM Thank god this licence has been quashed. This website is unbelievable just read the e mails on the home page!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES THEY HAVE HAD THIS E MAIL EVEN WHEN THEY GAVE HIM A LICENCE BIZARRE WE CAN ONLY GUESS WHAT HAS GONE ON

      Delete
    2. Why would they give him a licence he just shot himself in the foot. But why RISK it I agree totally bizarre.

      Delete
  6. Are we really paying taxes for all this it has taken three years, and they had these e:mails, and they are still unable to decide Bloody morons. I suggest you complain to the CEO at the environment agency .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can you complain when it is obviously top downwards. It would not have got so far if real management were in place and there was accountability. Do this in a private enterprise and your feet would not touch the ground.

      Delete
  7. Home made turbine like to see that, we need green energy not green overalls on the weir trying to get it to work. Better still a green screw the same as Freshford been there seen it and its great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Been to see that one at Freshford its running and its a real eye-opener on green energy, every weir should have one.

      Delete
  8. Up to the WEE hours what a mess. TREACHERY against the public and the tax payers,i suggest take the people responsible out to the wall at dawn and shoot them. regards Eddy

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am trying to spell "maladministration" but every time I put "EA" in the spelling my spell checker tells me I am spelling it wrong. Can someone help me out please or is it just my dictionary that is incorrect. I am sure the correct spelling is malEAdminstration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EA can spell it,just FOI the EA it will cost you thousands, but they are really good at it so they must be able to spell it....

      Delete
    2. This is not maladministration. Try spelling corruption i think that is in the dictionary. There is a great book called GOVERNMENT WASTE make the individuals accountable. NO ACCOUNTABILITY'SACK THEM---

      Delete
  10. Am i missing something! seems a bit biased.How could the EA get it so wrong. What is missing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GOT it wrong is polite just look at the emails and the MERITS, you are missing nothing. The money this has cost the taxpayer could have been better spent over HALF a MILLION on flood defences would have done some good.

      Delete
  11. well once the EA got caught out rather than admit they got it wrong they try to cover up the mistake by digging a deeper and deeper hole. lets be honest how did they choose a DIY self build fish eater over proven fish friendly turbines? I think the EA were told that the DIY turbine didnt run on water it ran on bullshit and they took it in.

    simon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY are running on PURE BULLSHIT. That is how they get there fix.

      Delete
    2. WE HAVE NOT POSTED A FOUL COMMENT HERE. PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL.WE HAVE MANY PEOPLE WATCHING WHO WOULD NOT LIKE THAT SORT OF LANGUAGE.IT WILL NOT BE POSTED.....

      Delete
  12. Are the EA above the law of the land, what do they mean the are not constrained by the consent order. Bet the judge would like that, he would nail them to the wall.As a retired clerk to the court i have seen it many times they really do not like this cavalier attitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THEY THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW

      Delete
  13. This situation, it is has me dumbfounded. The EA, yes the "ENVIRONMENT AGENCY" supposed to be protecting the environment. Seems like protecting the Utility companies from entrepreneurs. The governement's own carbon emission targets would suggest that they would be supportive of this project, but as I have always thought it's all lip service, because what this scheme does is empower individuals with vision, and lets face it, governments fear this. After studying the scheme and actually visiting the site, I can only admire the foresight of the developers and their technical expertise. The developers as far as I can see have ticked all the boxes and I see absolutely no reason why this scheme should be stiffled. It's an outrage

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for the responses to my earlier question on how to spell "maladministration" I was sure there was an EA in the spelling and low and behold I have eventually found the correct spelling. It is "malfeasance", it means the same but apparently is much more serious!!! I knew with the help of the internet bloggers I would get the correct spelling in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Talking out there arse on next blog at least you showed both yours and the other application, either could be commented on, not like the maliciousness put around residents and businesses "TRANSPARENCY and TRUTH PAYS DIVIDENDS"

    ReplyDelete
  16. I do not want to share my politics but I must say at least one good thing came out of the last Labour Government. It is the phrase "Not Fit For Purpose".
    It fits wonderfully as a description of the Environment Agency QUANGO. Yes quango, they are soon to be disbanded unfortunately most will just get a change of uniform (more cost) and details of who pays them - The Canal and River Trust, ie you and me the taxpayer. As attributed to the late Lord Mountbatten when coming up from a sinking ship in the mediteranean during the last war. The scum usually rises to the top.

    ReplyDelete

Get it off yer chest - please keep it civil