Streamside Walk - update

I felt that I had to follow up on these replies, so here is how I responded:-

Questions 1 and 5 remain unanswered.

I consider most of the answers to be poor, but that is just my opinion. However the all-important first question has not been properly dealt with. The fifth question asked about the current state of exposure to erosion, as a result of the works, so a description of what happened during the works is irrelevant. I want these two questions now to be answered, even if Street Care chooses not to respond further to my additional comments.

1. My question is unanswered. I know what dredging is. Now tell me what motivated the perceived need to dredge.

2. Thank you for that.

3. That you have not made any decision on the removal of the dredged material, three months after the event, is appalling. However, at some time between Wednesday, 5 May 2010, and today, Thursday, 13 May 2010, approximately one quarter of the pile vanished. So your response does not seem to fit the facts.

4. This is an absurd justification. For any sighted individual, it is impossible not to see the long pile of dredged material.

This does not seem to reflect the current state. At 15:30, today, Thursday, 13 May 2010, there were no cones anywhere – neither on the bank nor in the stream – a good thing too.

5. This does not answer my question at all. It is vegetation that prevents erosion, and stripping the area bare, as was done, just gives the potential for further erosion. Right now the exits from the flood plain are silting up, impeding the egress of the water
down to the Morton Stream.
Of course it causes a problem. Firstly, it is an eyesore in an area of public amenity. Secondly, it is a large amount of mud that is likely to be eroded by rain, and get washed back into the flood plain.

6. You did not answer this question directly. The advice that the Environment Agency gives is to desist from dredging: 'The idea of dredging to try and tackle extreme flooding is similar to the thought of trying to squeeze all of the water held in a floodplain back into the river. Since the floodplain volume is usually many times bigger than the river channel volume, this would be a major engineering project, and would cause massive  environmental change'.
tinyurl.com/2fspaqu

7. The current state of the floodplain area is completely at odds with any idea of due consideration for the area’s wildlife and vegetation. Right now (Thursday, 13 May 2010, afternoon) the flood plain area looks bleak and devastated, as though it has been
poisoned. There appear to be no water plants alive, and the area is swarming with clouds of breeding insects.

8. The project has proven to be unnecessary, inefficient, ineffective, and a waste of council tax payers’ money. The area looked nice before the dredging began, and the flood plain operated effectively as such.

On 13 May 2010, South Gloucestershire Council responded as follows:-

1. What was the reason for the dredging?
To carry out basic maintenance to the site, removing the build up of silt and debris.

2. On which day(s) did that dredging take place?
The contractor undertook the works during the month of February; during the second week of this month.

3. What is the plan for the disposal of the dredged material, which has been deposited on the stream bank (including dates and relocation site)?
The material placed on the bank is to be taken away by a licensed carrier, to a licensed site for disposal, the particular site has not yet been decided upon, and nor the date.

4. What is the purpose of the traffic cones alongside the dredged material, and what steps are in hand to prevent further unauthorised removal (which has included one being deposited in the stream)?
The traffic cones where placed out by the contractor to draw attention to the fact that the material had been placed on the bank. We do carry out regular site visits and replace the cones that have been moved.

5. Now that the floodplain has been largely stripped of vegetation, what consideration has been made about the potential effect on the area of heavy downpours of rain (including erosion of the stream bank, erosion of the island strips between the three main stream channels; erosion of the dredged material on the stream bank, and flooding of the general area)?
The material that has been removed from the stream is that, that has been deposited over the last couple of years. We did not carry out any works to any of the main stream banks, including the main banks of the islands. They should therefore not be affected by the works that have taken place. The contractor removed the looser material that had built up along the channels, returning them to there original sizes, to allow the water to pass by with greater ease, into the two lower streams. The material that has been deposited on the bank is due to be removed as stated above, and should not cause any problems in its current location.

6. Which recommendations from the Environment Agency on best practice for stream maintenance were considered before the dredging took place?
We undertook the maintenance works during the dormant season, and we are testing the material and taking it off site via a licensed carrier to a licensed disposal site.

7. What consideration was made about the effect on local wildlife, in and around the stream, of the dredging/devegetation, and which particular wildlife legislation was given special regard?
We had meetings with the local council wildlife officer and agreed the best times to carry out the works. The dormant season (during the winter months) being the most appropriate time to carry out the works. No one legislation drove the project, considerations where given to wildlife and vegetation as a whole.

8. When is it believed that the floodplain will return to being an “area of natural beauty” to be enjoyed and respected (as described on the public information signs along the linear park)?
We are hoping to have the material taken off site very soon and we will then carry out works to reinstate the bank to ensure that the grass grows back as before. The island vegetation should grow back as before within a couple of months. We work very closely with various groups in the area to keep the area looking nice and we will ensure that the same is done here.