| Re: British Waterways need a slap
I think BW’s environmental credentials are very low and they get away it most of the time because they hide behind their legislation to legitimise environmental destruction under the guise of lawful economic activity. However, in this case they may have a legitimate reason for doing it.
If the reservoir is large enough and the water is above the surrounding ground level it will come under the Reservoirs Act and the panel engineer may have instructed BW to cut the grass so it can be regularly inspected, as dictated by law. It’s so they can see if the earth dam is cracking – remember the dam that nearly collapsed near the M1 a couple of months ago? I’m often having arguments about cutting regimes with reservoir engineers. However, they should try and accommodate the biodiversity of the bank with a sympathetic cutting regime.
If the reservoir is not under the Reservoirs Act then they have no excuse.
If you want to get tough with them (and have a bit of fun), under the Freedom of Information Act ask them to send you all the paperwork they have on the decision to cut the bank so you can assess if you want to report them to the Ombudsman for breaching the British Waterways Act 1995 section 22.
This states: It shall be the duty of the Board, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to their functions—
(a) so far as may be consistent with the purposes of any enactment relating to those functions, so to exercise any power conferred on them with respect to the proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest; (this includes SSSIs and LNRs)
and
(c) to take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings, sites or objects.
Therefore, when considering cutting the bank they must consider its effects on any flora and fauna and this consideration must be auditable i.e. they must be able to account for their actions. If they can’t, they can be found guilty of maladministration or negligence. It won’t help this year but they will look at the mowing regime seriously in the future whether it’s a reservoir or not.
Also, why not ask them for a copy of their Code of Practice on Conservation – I’ve never been able to get hold of a copy of it.
Cheers, Chris  |