The Lugg

[spot]

A mile-long stretch of the River Lugg outside Kingsland, near Leominster in Herefordshire, has been flattened by a bulldozer. Trees have been felled, the river straightened and the river bed damaged.

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/hor ... t-uk-river

Actually the quote is from msn, whoever they are, but the link is to an informative website.

I'm entirely baffled by this. A sixteen ton bulldozer straightening and environmentally destroying a river subject to a Site of Special Scientific Interest order? In England? In the 21st century?

The courts have the option of an unlimited fine. I hope the outfit that ordered the vandalism, and the directors, and the shareholders, end up bankrupt, and that's before I hear what they thought they were doing.

https://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/news/d ... river-lugg

Critics said more should have been done to halt the destruction last week, on 26 November when the EA was first alerted to activity taking place on the river bank. It is understood the event was designated a category 1 incident; an event which has a serious, extensive or persistent impact on the environment.

But it was not until significant damage had been done that the EA and other officials used their powers of entry to stop the destruction, which environmentalists said would take decades to repair.

The river is protected as it is an important habitat for salmon, otters, lamprey, dragonfly and crayfish. The protection also covers the way the river meanders through the countryside. But after several days of activity, the river banks have been flattened, gravel has been scraped from the riverbed, and the gentle curve of the river has been straightened.

Helen Stace, the chief executive of the Herefordshire Wildlife Trust, said: “A large stretch of one of the UK’s most important rivers, the Lugg, has been devastated with dire consequences for wildlife and water quality downstream. This is a tragedy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... raightened

Here's the previous view from the same location, from Google Earth. There's extensive continuing updates on the local paper at https://www.ledburyreporter.co.uk/news/ ... riverbank/

lugg.png (2.25 MiB) Viewed 1431 times

Maybe someone hopes to make a fortune from building new homes, or maybe someone thought it would stop "measures to address the phosphate issue" with agricultural run-off. Maybe someone still expects to make a profit.


https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1891 ... e-concern/ mentions both possibilities.

[Bryn Mawr]

Extensive doesn’t cover the half of it. They have to throw the book at whoever did it to stop it happening again.

[spot]

Here we are - comment from the chap who claims he was doing the right thing. If anyone ever asks me what I think of farmers I'll refer them to this thread.

“They are not going to beat me,” Mr Price said.

“They don’t know who they’ve taken on here. I’ll pull them apart.

“They’ll know who I am by the time I’ve finished with them.

“I’ll look after the local Environment Agency and Forestry Commission.

“I’m not happy about this. I’ll get them to lose their jobs.”


https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1893 ... rt/?ref=ar

And to rub salt into a raw wound, "Bircher ward county councillor Sebastian Bowen" claims Mr Price was acting for the public good. The councillor fails, despite having been involved, to mention Mr Price's rejected multi-million pound housing development plan for the site earlier in the year:

The farmer at the centre of an investigation into damage to the riverbank next to the River Lugg in Herefordshire, had planning permission for 19 new homes near where the work has taken place REFUSED earlier this year.

Mr John Price had planned to build 19 new dwellings on land near the River Lugg in Kingsland but was refused by Herefordshire Council for the following reasons [...]


https://yourherefordshire.co.uk/all/new ... this-year/

To take just one of the objections from the council,

I find that the proposed development would harm a designated nature conservation site and would therefore conflict with policy SD4 of the Core Strategy which seeks to ensure that development does not undermine the achievement of water quality targets for rivers within the county and policy LD2 which states that development should conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity. Additionally, the proposal would be inconsistent with the provisions in the NPPF in relation to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and would not accord with the Conservation of Habitats Regulations, (The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017).

https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/info/2 ... ?id=200367

So perhaps I could quote myself from the first post...

The courts have the option of an unlimited fine. I hope the outfit that ordered the vandalism, and the directors, and the shareholders, end up bankrupt, and that's before I hear what they thought they were doing.

... and I'm lost for words when it comes to "He said he had not uprooted any trees, but had only cleared those that had come down in floods." - I think that's from the Daily Telegraph, but it's a pay-site so I can't check.

[spot]

And if anyone wonders why I detest the farming community root and branch, there's a fifty-page thread on The Farmers Forum where they queue up to cheer what was done.

https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php ... re.333691/

[FourPart]

Trees - particularly Riverside Trees, play a major part in the prevention of flooding. Without them, the land is far more likely to flood. The fact that the farmer says that he didn't uproot the trees, only removed those that fell in the floods is nonsense. The area is clearly a Flood Plain & prone to regular flooding. The trees had clearly been there for a long time & were adapted to the conditions. The trees also have a major impact on the course the river itself takes. Without them I can imagine the houses being built there, and in the first year of torrential rains they will be totally flooded out. The river will break its banks & begin to meander on a new course.

[spot]

If the Environment Agency thinks this sort of vandalism is acceptable, why do they invariably do it in secret?

Anglers ‘heartbroken’ as stretch of River Tone stripped of trees

Environment Agency devastates banks of river near Taunton ‘to protect properties in Bathpool’

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... d-of-trees

[spot]

Here we are - comment from the chap who claims he was doing the right thing. If anyone ever asks me what I think of farmers I'll refer them to this thread.

“They are not going to beat me,” Mr Price said.

“They don’t know who they’ve taken on here. I’ll pull them apart.

“They’ll know who I am by the time I’ve finished with them.

“I’ll look after the local Environment Agency and Forestry Commission.

“I’m not happy about this. I’ll get them to lose their jobs.”


https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/1893 ... rt/?ref=ar

I believe I suggested at the time that Mr Price was a scoundrel.

Mr Price is now, finally, sentenced. 12 months jail, 3 years disqualification from directing companies, and a £600,000 fine.

Mr Price will apparently appeal.

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/2346 ... nts-anchor

https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/04/ ... fordshire/

[spot]

The prat on the Lugg stayed solvent despite his willful bulldozing through every regulatory hurdle, perhaps the next case needs some spectacularly deterrent sentencing to jolt those who might otherwise chance their arm. Anyone interested in the fact that Mr Price is currently in jail can check his appeal verdict at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... r-65625272

And yet despite that, here's another shoddy development profiteer ripping the banks and trees off yet another natural river in a rural setting, this time the Fal, just so they can stick up unapproved crammed-in housing on a flood plain.

I'll add this a quote on how, why and when. The bolding is mine: Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, retributory damages or vindictive damages. Damages awarded in excess of the claimant’s loss. They are intended to punish the defendant rather than compensate the claimant and are only available in precise and limited circumstances such as where the defendant is guilty of oppressive or unconstitutional action or has calculated that the money to be made from their wrongdoing will probably exceed the damages payable.

A Cornish developer has been accused of carrying on with a housing project without planning permission and of damaging the environment when it hasn't got the right paperwork in place. Stephens & Stephens is being investigated by Cornwall Council for possible planning rule breaches for demolishing a former disused garage on a site it acquired in Grampound and for cutting down protected trees and damaging the bank of the River Fal with work it has no planning consent for.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... al-8600805