After quite a long pause the blog is now open again and the web site is "lit up".
This first post is about the Consent Order produced by the Administrative Division of The High Court on the 9th February 2012 (Issued 11th April) regarding the quashing of an abstraction licence unlawfully awarded to Weaver's Mill by the Environment Agency - where the Environment Agency lost and were subjected to all costs.
Our understanding (and our lawyers...) of the terms of the Consent Order which all parties signed - is that there is only a single scheme viable at Avoncliff and the awarding of this abstraction licence this time will be judged solely on the merits of the applying schemes.
We'd ask that you pop over to the web site and look at both the Judges comments at the permission hearing for Judicial Review and the Consent Order which resulted from the EA's admission that they acted unlawfully.
There's a bunch of stuff that will be going up on the web site as we go forwards. Please remember there are things we can't talk about for legal reasons.
We have turned moderation on - so sorry, there'll be a delay before your comment is approved. If everybody behaves themselves (and we don't mean you have to agree with us) we'll fully open stuff up.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
Going to see Duncan Hames MP tomorrow (Duncan's "previous" with the EA)
This first post is about the Consent Order produced by the Administrative Division of The High Court on the 9th February 2012 (Issued 11th April) regarding the quashing of an abstraction licence unlawfully awarded to Weaver's Mill by the Environment Agency - where the Environment Agency lost and were subjected to all costs.
We are not allowed to disclose the costs to the public purse in the Judicial Review - so please, don't ask us.
Our understanding (and our lawyers...) of the terms of the Consent Order which all parties signed - is that there is only a single scheme viable at Avoncliff and the awarding of this abstraction licence this time will be judged solely on the merits of the applying schemes.
We'd ask that you pop over to the web site and look at both the Judges comments at the permission hearing for Judicial Review and the Consent Order which resulted from the EA's admission that they acted unlawfully.
There's a bunch of stuff that will be going up on the web site as we go forwards. Please remember there are things we can't talk about for legal reasons.
We have turned moderation on - so sorry, there'll be a delay before your comment is approved. If everybody behaves themselves (and we don't mean you have to agree with us) we'll fully open stuff up.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
Going to see Duncan Hames MP tomorrow (Duncan's "previous" with the EA)
And about time too... what on earth is going on here?
ReplyDeleteKeep coming back and you might find out.
DeleteSHOVE IT TO THEM DISGRACEFUL
ReplyDeleteThis should be entertaining - where's the popcorn?
ReplyDeleteWell i heard from a British Hydro Member it was nearly 300K sack them the EA are nothing but trouble
ReplyDeleteAs per the post we're gagged - no comment.
Deletewaited long enough can see why
ReplyDeleteYou say over on the web site that it's about £500,000 spent for a £150 licence - that'd be £100,000 for an Environment Agency £27 fishing rod licence then :-)
ReplyDeleteyep
DeleteWhat i loose my job in cut backs this is shocking need to go before i blow a fuse f---
ReplyDeleteits simple give a licence get green energy going shame its taken so long was talked about years ago
ReplyDeleteWell i hope the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY LIGHTS GO OUT FIRST what a waste of money easy to spend someone elses
ReplyDeleteIf what the EA did was unlawful,why do they just not give the north mill the license?it has a huge water wheel so obviously should be the better place.all seems well dodgy cant you tell us more??
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteanother goverment body gone wrong THEY NEED TO BE MADE ACOUNTABLE
ReplyDeleteI don't know what all the fuss is about - this is standard operating procedure.
ReplyDeletestandard practice we and the enviorement are all f****d then because if this is how they gamble with public money EA lawyers should be made to pay out of their own money.DO THEY STILL HAVE JOBS ???????????
DeleteYawn.
ReplyDeleteAnother fag packet designed white elephant hydropower scheme built on the back the 'we're going to save the planet' agenda. Why don't you come clean and admit you're just in it for the FITs!! Your turbines will achieve nothing in the scheme of things other than lining your own pocket.
Actually... whats deeply exasperating is that this scheme doesn't need a FIT or funny finance to be viable - unlike onshore + especially offshore windmills and domestic solar panels.
DeleteA quick look at Daniel Curtis's NETA web page will show you that hydro provides power when people need it (and pay more for it...) - and even in it's present mucked up state regularly outdoes all those windmills....
Having said that - we will of course not turn away from people trying to give us money.
You might notice that we do not make a virtue of parroting the "green agenda".
It seems to me - that in essence is one of the problems here - the Environment Agency can't distinguish between a fag packet lash-up and a fully engineered, tried and tested design. Not fit for purpose comes to mind.
DeleteAnonymous @14:25
ReplyDeleteThis is a very small scheme - but - do tell us how to keep ALL the lights on then?
Have a word with our politicians while you're at it.
I understand the location of the North Mill Scheme and I did see the original plans for the Weavers Mill scheme. Locals swim in the river from the Westwood side where there is a rope swing. How will either scheme affect the swimmers? Will it still be safe to swim in the river? How will the increase in flow to either side, it is now roughly even over the weir, affect swimmers? I do not see a major problem with increased flow to the North Mill side but how strong will be the flow to the Weavers Mill side be through the swimming area?
ReplyDeleteHi
Deletethe inlets to the turbines will protected from ingesting swimmers... I think it probably won't make much difference to them - maybe a little less weed / reeds. The overall flow of the river doesn't change.
Given that the weir slopes - it's actually lower on the North Mill side - if there's ever *any* flow though Weavers's Mill it'd be when the river's quite high - not often.
Under water trash cleaner on Weavers Mill side running regularly could be dangerous but we assume there will be a further screen in front of this to protect the swimmers? North Mill won't need one.
DeleteIt's never "safe" for swimmers! River Avon smelly and dirty and full of rubbish so more danger from bugs than anything else. Swimmers try Stowford for really lovely water.
DeleteNot sure about redetermination? the word is that the ea have made it clear to someone that they will get the license, something to do with the kingston mills hydro project in B-ON-A [loose lips sink ships]?
ReplyDeletewhat is the EA up to this is crazy somebody needs sacking
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the Narrowboatworld article
ReplyDeletehttp://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/4572-a-law-unto-itself?showall=1
it's brilliant, must have been written by someone in the EA for it to be such an honest review of the situation, I don't think!!!
I HAVE NEVER IN 40 YEARS SEEN SUCH A STORY THEY NEED SACKING I AM ASHAMED BY THIS BEHAVIOUR BY FELLOW CIVIL SERVANTS
ReplyDeletewhat the hell is going on here?the EA have a duty to put right this mess,with Iford and Freshford screws up and running Avoncliff Northmill should be next.What a waste of green energy and tax payers money, Civil servants you should be ashamed!with E-mails like that on the web they should all be sacked. Mike B-0n-A
ReplyDeleteAusterity close down the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY save a packet all they do is put there nose in LOOKS DODGY TO ME WHO PAID WHO
ReplyDeleteTWO turbines what an over kill in this location NOT ON MY SHIFT
ReplyDeleteWhat a waste
ReplyDelete