Rain, rain and more rain

[shaun mc]

Sorry GS but tourism is by far and away the most important industry to the Lake District. I'm not counting the nuclear industry here as its outside the NP and is supported by and supports the industrial towns on the coast such as Barrow, Millom, Whitehaven, Workington and Maryport. Most of their manufacturing has gone and they have relatively minimal tourism by Lake District standards.

The honeypots of the Lake District and concentrated in an area that is absolutely dwarfed by the areas of the Pyrenees and Tatras. And the Rockies are just vast. Its a relatively small area, and I don't think a re-wilding project for the whole area will work. Keswick to Windermere is the main north to south extent of the popular area and its only 20 miles or so. Probably the Pennines are a larger area and more suited to re-wilding and forestation. IMO a Lynx population would just decimate livestock and some domestic animals.

The Lake District is a small area and its fells are steep. Where the road is blocked near Thirlmere and the site of the record 38 hour rainfall are some of the steepest - maybe 2200 feet of ascent in a mile or so. Rain is bound to run off quickly. Monbiot is acutely ant-sheep grazing. To some extent the sheep sculpt the fells and landscape that everyone admires, but I also accept that they may also be responsible for trimming the grass so short than run-off is excessive. Its a balance between the right planting of the right species in the right areas.

Places like Thornthwaite (I presume you mean the Whinlatter area) and Grizedale are popular and cater for families who want a stroll in the forest (and all the activities they can get up to in there) plus the mountain bikers. Walkers don't enjoy walking in miles and miles of forest never seeing the light of day, they want to be on the open fells, with the crags and views to match.

An aspect of tourism that is growing very quickly are those that spend a lot of money at expensive hotels and never really leave the hotel or then drive to somewhere. They want the spectacular views of the fells and not acres of forest which wouldn't have the same appeal.

[Saintslass]

I don't buy that argument highlighted in bold. You absolutely need to balance the needs of the local farming community with the environment. However, having travelled quite extensively to mountainous areas across the world including the Canadian Rockies, High Tatras in Poland, and the Pyrenees, you could reforest vast arrears of the Lakes and North Pennines (also in Cumbria) and not particularly effect tourism as the high fells would still be accessible and barren on the tops whilst attracting a muich larger array of wildlife to the reforested areas. This wildlife, especially if you reintroduced former native species like Lynx and birds of prey, would be an attraction and in my experience, places like Thornthwhaite and Grizedale Forests are some of the most popular locations in the Lakes. The key is the balance between the needs of the local communities from an economic point of you and the environment; at the moment it is incredibly out of balance.

The Lake District is beautiful because the barren fells contrast with the wooded villages snuggled into valleys.  That is the essence of the Lake District and what attracts so many visitors each year.  That has to be of great importance to any future flood plans.

[Wolford6]

Why do people always want to re-introduce species that were eliminated for a purpose, e.g the wolf, the lynx and the red kite?

 

if  they didn't take livestock, they wouldn't have been exterminated. When they get re-introduced, like the red kite, the government glosses over how many racing pigeons they take.

 

Well, a million years ago, there were loads of crocodiles in  GB; it's a wonder no-one wants to re-introduce them as well.

[Guest]

Can anybody tell me if the carlisle to Newcastle train line is still closed. Last I heard there was problems at hexham on the BBC travel updates but can't see any problems on the northern rail site?

[shaun mc]

Can anybody tell me if the carlisle to Newcastle train line is still closed. Last I heard there was problems at hexham on the BBC travel updates but can't see any problems on the northern rail site?

National Rail are reporting services from Carlisle to Newcastle with no service disruptions for tomorrow

[Guest]

National Rail are reporting services from Carlisle to Newcastle with no service disruptions for tomorrow

Thanks.

[Bearman]

It's all very well talking of forestration. In the past that meant quick growing species that were not native.as a result the woods were almost sterile with very little fauna in them.

Native species usually take longer to mature and there is very little money in them. As has been pointed out hill areas have a very acid soil and do not really suit those native trees.

These floods are nature in action, we have to adapt to it rather than trying to control it.

[GeordieSaint]

Sorry GS but tourism is by far and away the most important industry to the Lake District. I'm not counting the nuclear industry here as its outside the NP and is supported by and supports the industrial towns on the coast such as Barrow, Millom, Whitehaven, Workington and Maryport. Most of their manufacturing has gone and they have relatively minimal tourism by Lake District standards.

 

I am aware of the tourism industry and I think you misunderstand me a bit (my fault), I don't want a mass reforestation of the Lakes. But if done sustainable, you can support and improve both the human and natural environments. You can target specific areas of the Lakes without ruining the vistas or severally affecting livelihoods. Considering the impact, severity and recurrence of floods that are occurring, these issues aren't going away and land management practices need to be reassessed and researched.

 

On a side note, Monibot is deadset against the payment of farming subsidies to land owners. Do you know how much land in the Lakes is owned by the average farmer and how much is owned by the establishment or coorporations?

 

I was referring to Whinlatter by the way.

 

Why do people always want to re-introduce species that were eliminated for a purpose, e.g the wolf, the lynx and the red kite?

 

if  they didn't take livestock, they wouldn't have been exterminated. When they get re-introduced, like the red kite, the government glosses over how many racing pigeons they take.

 

Well, a million years ago, there were loads of crocodiles in  GB; it's a wonder no-one wants to re-introduce them as well.

 

It's a bit of myth that the likes of the wolf and the lynx kill livestock regularly. The wolf has an aura around it and has usually been hunted for sport rather than dessimating livestocks; studies from Europe show the loss of livestock from wolves is minimal. Canada is currently undergoing a wolf purge in British Columbia and Alberta as they are blamed for the falling numbers in Caribhou numbers in those states; this is taking place despite evidence that wolves have nothing to do with and it is actually 'man' causing the fall in numbers. I personally would like to see a sustainable reintroduction of species we removed from the landscape as the likes of lynx, beavers, pinemartins etc do have benefit, especially controlling deer and grey squirrel stocks which are massively out of control in the UK and require expensive/ineffective culling practices to deal with the issue.

 

Crocodiles weren't wiped out by us; not really a good example.

[GeordieSaint]

These floods are nature in action, we have to adapt to it rather than trying to control it.

 

How will you adapt? Build home on stilts? Not build in large floodplain areas? Build dams? All are expensive... reducing run-off in upland areas which are the real cause of the floods are more efficient and cost-effective.

[Futtocks]

Crocodiles weren't wiped out by us; not really a good example.

Never wondered where Jimmy Nail got his shoes?

[Wolford6]

Never wondered where Jimmy Nail got his shoes?

 

Oh, don't start.

You'll get the hand-wringers up in arms.

[Wolford6]

I am aware of the tourism industry and I think you misunderstand me a bit (my fault), I don't want a mass reforestation of the Lakes. But if done sustainable, you can support and improve both the human and natural environments. You can target specific areas of the Lakes without ruining the vistas or severally affecting livelihoods. Considering the impact, severity and recurrence of floods that are occurring, these issues aren't going away and land management practices need to be reassessed and researched.

 

On a side note, Monibot is deadset against the payment of farming subsidies to land owners. Do you know how much land in the Lakes is owned by the average farmer and how much is owned by the establishment or coorporations?

 

I was referring to Whinlatter by the way.

 

 

It's a bit of myth that the likes of the wolf and the lynx kill livestock regularly. The wolf has an aura around it and has usually been hunted for sport rather than dessimating livestocks; studies from Europe show the loss of livestock from wolves is minimal. Canada is currently undergoing a wolf purge in British Columbia and Alberta as they are blamed for the falling numbers in Caribhou numbers in those states; this is taking place despite evidence that wolves have nothing to do with and it is actually 'man' causing the fall in numbers. I personally would like to see a sustainable reintroduction of species we removed from the landscape as the likes of lynx, beavers, pinemartins etc do have benefit, especially controlling deer and grey squirrel stocks which are massively out of control in the UK and require expensive/ineffective culling practices to deal with the issue.

 

Crocodiles weren't wiped out by us; not really a good example.

 

Hmm, trained killer would like to see more natural killers in somewhere that he doesn't himself live.

[Bearman]

How will you adapt? Build home on stilts? Not build in large floodplain areas? Build dams? All are expensive... reducing run-off in upland areas which are the real cause of the floods are more efficient and cost-effective.

Don't build on flood plains. Eventually you have to come round to the point of view that nature will win. The East coast is a good example of that. Despite years and millions being spent in trying to control erosion the received wisdom is to now let the sea do whatever it's going to do.

If you are going to build on flood plains then Stilts ARE the answer. That's what people have been doing for years in Asia. Even then they have to accept that it doesn't always work.

Reducing run off is a tool, it will help but we are kidding ourselves if we think our feeble attempts to manipulate our environment will ever overcome mother nature.

[GeordieSaint]

Don't build on flood plains. Eventually you have to come round to the point of view that nature will win. The East coast is a good example of that. Despite years and millions being spent in trying to control erosion the received wisdom is to now let the sea do whatever it's going to do.

If you are going to build on flood plains then Stilts ARE the answer. That's what people have been doing for years in Asia. Even then they have to accept that it doesn't always work.

Reducing run off is a tool, it will help but we are kidding ourselves if we think our feeble attempts to manipulate our environment will ever overcome mother nature.

 

I absolutely don't disagree; my point is you can help mitigate the risk through better land management practices. Mother Nature is a far being beast than anything are species can control but are practices in upland areas are helping to increase that risk and their severity. I'd never personally buy or build a house on a floodplain but in the UK, that is not something we'll see as common practice.

[Griff9of13]

UKIP say that the refugees are to blame for the floods (changed their tune from last time when it was the gays fault): http://thelondoneconomic.com/news/ukip-candidate-blames-refugees-not-homosexuals-for-latest-flood/08/12

[Saint Toppy]

Don't build on flood plains. Eventually you have to come round to the point of view that nature will win. The East coast is a good example of that. Despite years and millions being spent in trying to control erosion the received wisdom is to now let the sea do whatever it's going to do.

If you are going to build on flood plains then Stilts ARE the answer. That's what people have been doing for years in Asia. Even then they have to accept that it doesn't always work.

Reducing run off is a tool, it will help but we are kidding ourselves if we think our feeble attempts to manipulate our environment will ever overcome mother nature.

Building on floodplains is fine, we just need to copy the Dutch model of constructing the houses on concrete rafts that can then rise up & down on steel piers as the flood waters rise. Services are on flexible pipes so the house never loses its water & electricity supply. From an engineering perspective its not that complicated and not that much more expensive than traditional foundations (adds around 15-20% to the groundworks costs) but developers will always take the cheapest option and leave the flooding problem to someone else.

The government should permit more building on floodplains to help solve our housing problems but with the restriction of making the houses float.

[Wolford6]

I worked on the construction of some office blocks in Sheffield, in a flood-risk zone. We had to lower the construction-base from the previous level to increase the flood-relief capacity in the city centre. The bottom floors of the blocks were devoted to carparks for the workers.

 

This system, together with the preferential siting of multi-storey carparks, could facilitate waterfront development of brownfield sites right across Britain.

[Griff9of13]

Building on floodplains is fine, we just need to copy the Dutch model of constructing the houses on concrete rafts that can then rise up & down on steel piers as the flood waters rise. Services are on flexible pipes so the house never loses its water & electricity supply. From an engineering perspective its not that complicated and not that much more expensive than traditional foundations (adds around 15-20% to the groundworks costs) but developers will always take the cheapest option and leave the flooding problem to someone else.

The government should permit more building on floodplains to help solve our housing problems but with the restriction of making the houses float.

 

Sounds good, but if you tarmac over large tracts of flood plain where does the water end up going? This is something of an issue local to me as our council in it's infinite wisdom are proposing to allow building on flood plain land on the edge of town. The plans have been rejected once, but they are being reconsidered. They say the developers will construct drainage but that has been said before elsewhere only to be found to be completely inadequate, but by then the horse has bolted and the developers long gone. When the last plans were examined in detail the surveyors came to the conclusion that the new buildings would be reasonably safe but the houses nearby would be the ones to suffer from the run off from the new development. 

[chuffer]

more heavy rain today  .....though 80mm is expected rather than the 300mm they got the other day......it shouldn't be too bad but even that 80mm has to go somewhere and everywhere's still saturated apparently....

[longboard]

Why do people always want to re-introduce species that were eliminated for a purpose, e.g the wolf, the lynx and the red kite?

 

if  they didn't take livestock, they wouldn't have been exterminated. When they get re-introduced, like the red kite, the government glosses over how many racing pigeons they take.

 

Well, a million years ago, there were loads of crocodiles in  GB; it's a wonder no-one wants to re-introduce them as well.

There are various reasons, including the fact that we have plenty and people's views on the persecution of animals.... Some people like persecuting animals cf the history of persecution of owls which feed on voles, mice, rats etc. Some people just like shooting and hunting animals. As you know a bit about grouse shooting, you will no doubt realise that people shoot them for entertainment, whilst gamekeepers trap, shoot and poison other creatures because they are seen as 'vermin', when, in truth, most of the supposed undesirable creatures are, in the main, killing to stay alive. 

 

Red Kites eat a lot of carrion and mice, rats, rabbits etc. They are pretty slow flying birds, so my money would be on a racing pigeon in a contest of speed.

 

With regard to the crocodiles,the current climate would no doubt be influential in whether a population could sustain themselves, but there is a certain attraction in the thought of crocs on the Rivers Wharfe and Aire.

[Wolford6]

 

 

Red Kites eat a lot of carrion and mice, rats, rabbits etc. They are pretty slow flying birds, so my money would be on a racing pigeon in a contest of speed.

 

 

 

You can never trust what the RSPB says. It is as much a political organisation as a bird-protection organisation. If red kites can take swallows, they can definitely take a racing pigeon that's just flown 200 miles without food or water.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthcomment/country-diary/8579259/Buzzards-and-red-kites-are-on-the-rise.html

[Saint Toppy]

Sounds good, but if you tarmac over large tracts of flood plain where does the water end up going? This is something of an issue local to me as our council in it's infinite wisdom are proposing to allow building on flood plain land on the edge of town. The plans have been rejected once, but they are being reconsidered. They say the developers will construct drainage but that has been said before elsewhere only to be found to be completely inadequate, but by then the horse has bolted and the developers long gone. When the last plans were examined in detail the surveyors came to the conclusion that the new buildings would be reasonably safe but the houses nearby would be the ones to suffer from the run off from the new development. 

Current rules should prevent this (if followed correctly). If the run-of from the land into the nearest watercourse was says 5l/sec then this is the value the developer is restricted to post construction. They have to build in storage to collect all the water on the development site and install some sort of restrictor (like an orific plate) that will restrict the flow of this water to 5l/sec back into the watercourse. Most larger developments now do this by building an attenuation pond (which also ticks lots of other environmental boxes) but on sites where there is restricted land such as in cities they build the storage underground in reservoirs. The most common types now a big plastic crates than can slot together like lego blocks so you can form them into any shape & size you want to fit the site.

The Environment Agency are fairly strict on these sort of things but the problem is most smaller developments only go to the local authority for approval and they have neither the time or expertise to fully check all the drainage calculations or flood modelling for the development.

Small developers argue that the effect of building just 1 or 2 new houses on a site will make negligible difference so dont have to comply with the stringent rules as the large developments. But in reality when you then have 20,000 small 1 & 2 house developments going up around the country every year it starts to make a massive difference.

[Saint Toppy]

 

Deleted - Double post

[Griff9of13]

Current rules should prevent this (if followed correctly). If the run-of from the land into the nearest watercourse was says 5l/sec then this is the value the developer is restricted to post construction. They have to build in storage to collect all the water on the development site and install some sort of restrictor (like an orific plate) that will restrict the flow of this water to 5l/sec back into the watercourse. Most larger developments now do this by building an attenuation pond (which also ticks lots of other environmental boxes) but on sites where there is restricted land such as in cities they build the storage underground in reservoirs. The most common types now a big plastic crates than can slot together like lego blocks so you can form them into any shape & size you want to fit the site.

The Environment Agency are fairly strict on these sort of things but the problem is most smaller developments only go to the local authority for approval and they have neither the time or expertise to fully check all the drainage calculations or flood modelling for the development.

Small developers argue that the effect of building just 1 or 2 new houses on a site will make negligible difference so dont have to comply with the stringent rules as the large developments. But in reality when you then have 20,000 small 1 & 2 house developments going up around the country every year it starts to make a massive difference.

 

Thanks for that, very informative. That may be useful when the next application comes up for public scrutiny. 

[Jonty]

There was a query earlier about who owns the Lake District. Basically the main owners are the National Trust (around 23%, farmland and fells, including the Borrowdale tributaries of the Derwent) and United Utilities (around 8%, Thirlmere, Haweswater areas). The remainder is mainly private ownership, with the Park authority owning about 4%, and the Forestry Commission owning Grizedale and Whinlatter.

 

Of the private ownership, much of the land is in the hands of farmers themselves - there is far less of a tradition of big country estates and aristocracy in Cumbria for historical reasons, the main exceptions being the Holker and Lowther estates which are largely limited to the fringes of the Lakes. Small private farms were certainly the norm a century ago, although Beatrix Potter changed that by using her book profits to buy up farms that came on the market and gifting the land to the National Trust, hence why the Trust is the largest single landowner today. Many National Trust farms have ceased farming and become holiday lets at extortionate prices; there has also been a trend of the National Trust parachuting professional farmers in from outside the district when a tenancy comes up. It's not uncommon to hear local people refer to the Trust as the "Lake District mafia". Certainly, when I worked for the National Park authority in the late 1990s, there was aura of superiority from National Trust members and officials and a "we know best" attitude" that looked down on the local farming community.