Sheffield River Loxley hydro electric plant blot on the the landscape, energy for only 12 houses!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- I have reproduced the following video for Bryn and Andrew who have been monitoring this since 2018. I think this video is pretty balanced and Bryn and Andrew have all the evidence to back this up.
**www.buymeacoff... rather than a super thanks that UA-cam take over 40% from. **
Andrew and Bryn have compiled this.
The following is a commentary on the plant operated in the Loxley valley by Wìsewood hydro Ltd .This is a 8.5 kilowatts Archimedes screw automatically controlled apparatus.
Considering the damage caused by the construction and operation of this plant to the environment and the continuous dredging in order to keep it working for a minimal amount of power is it justified?
There are a number of protected species in the river and it is an unsightly structure on a nature and heritage trail. It is built on a weir of National if not International importance according to the Brigantia Trust. The weir is not owned by Wìsewood Hydro Ltd who have attached an unsightly fish pass and a metal extension to the weir top which attracts debris.
The plant required planning permission, design and construction spec. and drawings. Once approved these should be followed. In a Local nature site Natural England expects these to be followed but it was not consulted.
Site access was approved via an adjacent farm but the construction actually took place through a tip where unregulated tipping occurred over 50 years and the capping was not to be disturbed. The Local Authority and the site owner knew of the nature of the tip where the site owned had previously constructed a dwelling. A road was driven through the capped tip as evidenced by previous photographs in The Sheffield Star. The original approved access plan was ignored. This was presented as a move designed to save trees which may have contained bats and other protected species. There is no evidence of a bat survey.
The EA have acknowledged that this is a local nature site with protected and endangered species on land and river and should have carried out a risk assessment to decide if work of the nature intended was suitable. Information should have been provided to the Local Authority which may have required a report from an ecologist as without this planning could have been refused. Natural England should have been contacted regarding the provision of an environmental impact assessment. This may have required a mitigation licence.
Significantly in the Environment Agency report approving the plant they say there is no data and no baseline ecological survey yet they still approved it?
The plant owners say they operate in line with the licence but this is far far from being accurate. The licence specifies a flow over the weir when the plant is in operation but over 5 years the EA as recently as June 2024 have photographic evidence that the weir is dry and the plant in operation. Debris on the weir when the EA visited in 2024 confirms this and it is evidenced in numerous photographs that the plans for an automatic shut off at low water are ignored by the licence authorities and the operator on these occasions. The flow calculations reveal at the planning stage that the plant cannot operate legally for long periods of the year but it does.
The plant operator lives on site and claims compliance with the abstraction licence but the Environment Agency have evidence that there are frequent breaches of the operating licence over a number of years.
The filling in of the weir pool during construction has never been resolved and no investigation undertaken into the killing of protected species by this action. It was supposed to remain at 2 metres deep following construction. Trees were removed during construction and habitats destroyed. A road has been constructed along the river although this is not allowed at the proximity of less than 8 metres from the river and the plant operator has admitted digging in the river. It appears waste from the tip may well have been used although both the LA and EA appear uninterested. A road has been cut through the tip which was previously capped so seepage in to the river by hazardous materials may well be a feature.
The leat to Mill Dam mentioned in documents as providing sweetening water to Mill Dam was boarded over by the plant operator preventing the passing of fish in to and out of Mill Dam. Stones placed in the weir pool wash away hazarding fish in the pool and river but are reinstated by the operator. They are not in the plans but obstruct an area to be left for a possible future fish pass. The EA once considered a remedial notice regarding this but took no action but they have now approve dredging in an exemption which always causes some harm, further harming protected species and their habitat.
See the first pinned comment for the complete commentary.
The following is a commentary on the plant operated in the Loxley valley by Wìsewood hydro Ltd .This is a 8.5 kilowatts Archimedes screw automatically controlled apparatus.
Considering the damage caused by the construction and operation of this plant to the environment and the continuous dredging in order to keep it working for a minimal amount of power is it justified?
There are a number of protected species in the river and it is an unsightly structure on a nature and heritage trail. It is built on a weir of National if not International importance according to the Brigantia Trust. The weir is not owned by Wìsewood Hydro Ltd who have attached an unsightly fish pass and a metal extension to the weir top which attracts debris.
The plant required planning permission, design and construction spec. and drawings. Once approved these should be followed. In a Local nature site Natural England expects these to be followed but it was not consulted.
Site access was approved via an adjacent farm but the construction actually took place through a tip where unregulated tipping occurred over 50 years and the capping was not to be disturbed. The Local Authority and the site owner knew of the nature of the tip where the site owned had previously constructed a dwelling. A road was driven through the capped tip as evidenced by previous photographs in The Sheffield Star. The original approved access plan was ignored. This was presented as a move designed to save trees which may have contained bats and other protected species. There is no evidence of a bat survey.
The EA have acknowledged that this is a local nature site with protected and endangered species on land and river and should have carried out a risk assessment to decide if work of the nature intended was suitable. Information should have been provided to the Local Authority which may have required a report from an ecologist as without this planning could have been refused. Natural England should have been contacted regarding the provision of an environmental impact assessment. This may have required a mitigation licence.
Significantly in the Environment Agency report approving the plant they say there is no data and no baseline ecological survey yet they still approved it?
The plant owners say they operate in line with the licence but this is far far from being accurate. The licence specifies a flow over the weir when the plant is in operation but over 5 years the EA as recently as June 2024 have photographic evidence that the weir is dry and the plant in operation. Debris on the weir when the EA visited in 2024 confirms this and it is evidenced in numerous photographs that the plans for an automatic shut off at low water are ignored by the licence authorities and the operator on these occasions. The flow calculations reveal at the planning stage that the plant cannot operate legally for long periods of the year but it does.
The plant operator lives on site and claims compliance with the abstraction licence but the Environment Agency have evidence that there are frequent breaches of the operating licence over a number of years.
The filling in of the weir pool during construction has never been resolved and no investigation undertaken into the killing of protected species by this action. It was supposed to remain at 2 metres deep following construction. Trees were removed during construction and habitats destroyed. A road has been constructed along the river although this is not allowed at the proximity of less than 8 metres from the river and the plant operator has admitted digging in the river. It appears waste from the tip may well have been used although both the LA and EA appear uninterested. A road has been cut through the tip which was previously capped so seepage in to the river by hazardous materials may well be a feature.
The leat to Mill Dam mentioned in documents as providing sweetening water to Mill Dam was boarded over by the plant operator preventing the passing of fish in to and out of Mill Dam. Stones placed in the weir pool wash away hazarding fish in the pool and river but are reinstated by the operator. They are not in the plans but obstruct an area to be left for a possible future fish pass. The EA once considered a remedial notice regarding this but took no action but they have now approve dredging in an exemption which always causes some harm, further harming protected species and their habitat.
Without contacting the EA heavy machinery was used in the river during the spawning season and a STOP notice issued by the EA was ignored with no subsequent prosecution.
The operators summary of this project doesn't really seem to reflect the environment cost of this operation considering some of the facts. Research has found such schemes prevent migration and in some countries these schemes are being demolished for environmental reasons.
Like you said its an eyesore it was a lovely quiet spot to fish still fish down there
Not going to be great with that noise in the background either. I am told they aren't allowing enough water over the weir for the fish.
I haven't really got an issue with the structure, that whole river valley and the other 4 in Sheffield were once hives of industry. It's that afterthought/joke of a "fish-pass" that really concerns me when we know Salmon and probably sea trout are making their way back into the city.
Lovely filming again, Tim. Made me think of the fish byway they built in Millhouses park, away from the weir near the old paddling pools. I always wondered how on earth fish could really use it with great boulders to get over.
Thanks Zoy. I hate being scripted but the video looks good. One thing I was told wrong, the water over the top of the Weir has to be controlled at 22mm. I had to remove the 200mm I was told, I never thought that was right.
All the people that seem to think hydro is a feasible solution on small rivers need to look at this. The amount of investment and destruction of habitat to power such a tiny number of homes simply makes the economics of the installation a non-starter.
Totally agree with you Bob. They claim to be green and ruin a beauty spot.
Hi tim interesting video mate
Thanks Andy.
A lot of faf for just 12 houses Tim did they know that when they built it or was it an experiment ?
I am guessing they knew that John. But an old mill would produce enough power for communities.
Must be a relief to be there Tim after Sunday's events. I live not far from Loxley
That was the day before Alex, I needed to charge my batteries to go to Manvers,
@@timawells oh right, fair enough
8.5 kW is not enough to power 12 houses. If they all turned all their kettles on at once it would fail.
That Archimedean screw noise is appalling. Council should serve a noise abatement notice requiring some acoustic screening and soundproofing.
I think it could have been built more in keeping with the natural environment, I would like to see how the Dutch attempt this. The noise is even worse when you are actually there. They are going on the basis that over 24 hrs it puts enough electricity into the grid for 12 houses.
@@timawells To my mind they are stretching that! If that unit does generate a constant 8.5 kW (which I would doubt) that's ~200 kWh per day - so probably only 6 or 7 average households.
As for the design yes it's brutalist! The concrete could have been faced with rocks in keeping with the surroundings and the 'garden shed' could well have been design to be less 'sore thumb'.
@@barrieshepherd7694 Absolutely Barrie. Andrew and Bryn are concerned that the hydro plant its taking more water than it should and isn't cutting out when the Weir level drops below 22m..