From Drs Ian & Gill Cardy Volunteer wardens Conigre Mead Nature Reserve. May 2016

Re Planning Application W/12/01080/FUL

We wish to object to this proposal on the following grounds:

1. Non-compliance with Wiltshire Core Policy 50. 8.1.10 there is no demonstration as to how Aquatic invertebrates and Macrophytes will be “protected and managed favourably” or that there would be “no net loss of biodiversity”. 8.1.11 (“Damage or disturbance to local sites will generally be unacceptable”) There are poor enhancement proposals for existing habitats, and very few proposals for creating new habitats in line with targets and opportunities outlined in the Wiltshire Biodiversity Action Plan. There would be permanent riverine habitat destruction in Conigre Mead, a Local Wildlife Site, and destruction of important species in the River Avon which is a County Wildlife Site. There would also be a risk of introducing Invasive Alien Species such as Demon Shrimp (Dikerogammus haematobaphes), known to be in the Kennet and Avon Canal, and Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). These two species would enter the river not only by water carriage but attached to boats. (Ref.5)

2. Non-compliance with the Water Framework Directive as there would be deterioration of water quality not only by pollution but by the permanent condition of turbidity of suspended silt solids caused by propeller disturbance. The evidence for this can be seen by observation of the Kennet and Avon canal at the proposed junction, and the deterioration of the River Kennet (currently being restored) where it is used as part of the Kennet and Avon Canal below Copse Lock and where the state of a SSI has been evaluated as 100% unfavourable.(REF.1 Briggs 1996 and 2 Briggs 2012 )

We would like to draw attention to the following points, which have not been thoroughly addressed:

Habitat and biodiversity There appears to have been no survey of aquatic macrophytes and aquatic flora. Such surveys as have been done fail to mention species in Conigre Mead Nature Reserve such as Arrowhead (Sagittaria sagittifolia) and Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus), which are uncommon Wiltshire species.

Some riverside trees may die, as a result of having their roots permanently in the higher level of water caused by the new weir. We object to removal of one of our bankside trees as it is vital in maintaining the stability of the river bank.

Turbidity of the water reduces the light needed for vegetation, reduces oxygen levels in the water and causes water temperature rise, all of which impact negatively on fish, plants and aquatic invertebrates.

Conigre Mead’s river bank may be a small proportion of the whole route but we submit that it has probably has the highest biodiversity of anywhere else on the route. How is this to be maintained? There seems to be no defined mitigation proposals. There is no point in making tunnels for Kingfishers – they have made their own on this stretch before and are quite capable of making others if needed – in probably a less disturbed part of the river with high banks, and why would they want to breed in fish-depleted waters anyway? A new Otter holt would be soon overcome by siltation – as has probably happened to the previous one.

What is needed is protection of existing species to prevent loss due to deterioration of Water Quality. This may be difficult to achieve and is the basis for our main objections.

There are several points where steel piling is proposed, one alongside Conigre Mead, so destroying the natural characteristics and habitats of the river. It would eliminate emergent vegetation, so important for invertebrates .

Siltation Sources of siltation are: a) partly from Clacker’s Brook, where a flow of silt can be clearly seen at the Town Bridge during and after rain events. The source is from bank erosion and probably upstream agricultural run off. b) mainly from run off from the upstream agriculture which in recent years has been high volume Maize production on both sides of the river upstream of Melksham. This has resulted in a noticeable increase in silt deposit on Conigre Mead during flood events and results in up to an inch of silt over the flooded area at each flood event There is no grazing here now as stated in one of the documents on the present environment.

Siltation would prevent the construction and use of the river bank as a tow path, particularly in Conigre Mead as it would be muddy and dangerous during, and for some time after, the water level has receded. Maintenance on a frequent and regular basis would be imperative. It also damages the habitat of Conigre mead owing to the deposit of highly fertilized top-soil from agricultural run-off. c) flow of silt laden canal water from the new link to the river – small at first but increasing over time with use by propeller driven boats d) The new weir would cause a build up of silt, the release of which in the winter would have impacts down stream

Results of siltation Hardly any attention has been given to the operational effects of boat traffic. Most damaging would be the effect of propeller driven boats to disturb the silt and produce a permanent state of turbidity of silt particles in the river (briefly mentioned in 8.4.66). This factor has been studied in detail by a former British waterways ecologist, Jeremy Briggs and has been shown to be the most important

cause of habitat deterioration in rivers used as canals. He has shown for example that where some 26 river SSI’s are associated with canals the vast majority (17) are now in 100% unfavourable condition. (Ref: 2. Briggs 2012 )

Propellers also destroy the macrophytes.

9.4.66 does not adequately address the effect of Turbidity, of which there is a clear example in the Kennet and Avon Canal, particularly in stretches of high use like that where the junction with the Melksham Link would be. This effect is caused not just by wake disturbance but by the speed and number of boat movements envisaged. (refWe note that these are forecast to be somewhere between 400 and over a thousand in the summer months in the restored canal. The K& A canal water is constantly cloudy with characteristic coffee-coloured water caused by turbidity. Are any invertebrates similar to those in the river to be fond here? Are there any studies of the invertebrates in the Kennet and Avon canal at the junction with the Melksham Link?

Are there any measured levels of the existing silt load in the river? The volume, content and quality of the dredgings have yet to be determined. Some could well be contaminated be the long term presence of the riverside tyre factory.

Dredging There must be a high level of silt behind the old Melksham Gate Weir. Surely this must be quantified before permission is granted, What would be the result of removing some of it when building the new lock alongside? Silt would be release in some volume when the lock is operated. Dredging would have to be repeated at frequent intervals, as siltation increases, in order to enable navigation, and would repeatedly impact negatively on macrophyte growth and invertebrate life.

The ecological survey of the river at Challymead and Conigre Mead has shown that numbers of ecologically important caddis fly and Mayfly larvae inhabit, not only the marginal sites but also in-channel, and thus would be killed by dredging.

We strongly oppose the deposition of the dredgings as infill to the proposed area under Challymead Bridge and immediately upstream, where it would probably kill all the aquatic invertebrates currently living there. This area of the proposed tow-path is the most prolific site in the Reserve for aquatic invertebrates such as dragonflies and damselflies as well as other insects such as crickets and would have a disastrous effect on these species. The Scarce Chaser dragonfly is only found along the Bristol River Avon, in Wiltshire, and Conigre Mead is the only recorded breeding site for the species. An important population of White-legged damselfly is also found here. This habitat must not be destroyed.

We cannot see what period would be suitable for dredging if it is to be done safely in order to preserve invertebrate life of benthic species. The life cycle of most aquatic invertebrates, such as Dragonflies and Mayflies is around 2 years, so no period would avoid their damage and destruction.

River Morphology There appears to be no description of the river morphology. The river between the bridges is far from straight, as some 15 years ago the Environment Agency constructed several meanders of Mendip stone to improve the river flow. These have provided important habitats for breeding invertebrates, emerging vegetation and fish spawning areas, and must be retained. This is another reason for our objection to the construction of a tow path under Challymead Bridge, which will decrease the discharge flow of the river under the bridge. Buoyage may be needed upstream.

Bristol River Avon Characteristics This is a flash flood river and can flood in the summer as well as the winter. This year since December 2015 until mid May 2016 the water levels have been high, mostly above 32 m. and the river flow fast, resulting in 5 flood events this year alone, and dangerous navigation conditions. Have any calculations been made for the effects of climate change which envisage more episodes of stormy weather and high rainfall in variable times of the year? The new weir may have to be opened in summer as well as winter to release the silt, so extending the damaging effect of silt further downstream. This is a high maintenance route, and must be costed with guaranteed financial provision before it can be approved.

Proposed Cycle and Tow-path It seems to have been assumed that the Millennium Riverside Path continues along Conigre Mead’s river Bank. This is not the case: the Millennium Path having entered the reserve by a gate into Conigre Mead continues in a south-westerly direction across the Reserve to the Cemetery entrance to join up with existing rights of way to the west of the A350. This is an unsuitable site for a path owing to flooding. Please note that cycling is not allowed in the Nature Reserve. This is mainly to protect slow moving creatures such as small mammals, reptiles and larvae of various species, and to protect other less able and vulnerable human visitors who may be using the paths. Cyclist would be required to dismount and walk.

Sustainability The Grontmij report could only identify limited sources of available water. This would severely restrict the number of boat movement northwards from Melksham. The cost in 2006 was estimated to be £60million, with maintenance costs of £3million per year. The Environmental Agency would not allow abstraction in low flow conditions (Ref 3). It will also be under water for much of the winter and in summer rain and flood events when it would be covered by heavy silt deposits and will be dangerous to use.

Legal Requirements. There are no Navigation Rights and never have been on the River Avon above Bath. Please see the House of Lord’s Judgement of 5 Dec 1991 Attorney General ex Relatio Derwent Trust Ltd. And Another v Brotherton and Others., which says that “the public have no right to use the bed and banks of the river, and that

“the flowing water is incapable of ownership and hence of dedication” (as a public right of way). This applies to all rivers and legislation is required.

Finally we would plead that the route stops at Berryfields and nothing is done to use and damage the river until the extension of the canal route northwards to join the historic route can be guaranteed. Further extended use of the river as a canal, as shown in the plan, would bring even more death and destruction to the wildlife of the river. A dead end canal is not attractive and may deteriorate quickly, particularly if there are restricted funds for continual maintenance.

We still maintain that this is the wrong route.

Ian & Gill Cardy

19 Watson’s Court, Melksham

References 1. Canals under New Management. Briggs British Wildlife 2012 vol23 no.5 314- 2.Canals –Wildlife Value and Restoration Issues. Briggs , 1996 British Wildlife Vol 7 No6 p314-323 3. State of the Environment, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Wiltshire Council, et al 2012 p.7 4. Wiltshire Wildlife Trust magazine Autumn 2013 p.3-6 5. State of the Environment, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Wiltshire Council et al 2013 p.13.