Obviously no one wanted to come along or send me any questions; anyway, I met with Tom Reid and Emma Ventham of the Environment Agency, Kirk Alexander of WCCP, Alison Beaumont, the Community Warden and a chap called Terry Whitehead, who lives in Charlton Avenue along Barton Path to look at and discuss various issues with the River Dour.
It was accepted that there is perhaps a little too much vegetation in the river and so the EA are going to clear some of it out in early October; it does add to it being a very healthy river. In fact it is so healthy and attractive that people from Canterbury (who are responsible for their river) envy us and our river and are looking to have much more plant-life in their river - taking a leaf out of our book (or river), so to speak.
We have perhaps one of, if not the most healthiest chalk streams in the Country.
One of the issues that would involve DDC is that as the Council is the landowner with riparian rights over much of the channel (from the far bank to the centre of the river), it would be able to post signs advising dog owners it is an offence to encourage/allow their dogs into the river during the bird breeding season, or anytime of the year.
The signs would need to be pointing across the river, people will know that it applied to the whole river; enforcement of this restriction would be the responsibility of the Council as it is the landowner.
It is an offence for nests, wild-birds and their eggs to be damaged in this way; the "Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981" -
http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 allows for prosecutions to be made.
Here is an extract from that law:
Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs.E+W
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally— (a)kills, injures or takes any wild bird;
F1(aa)takes, damages or destroys the nest of a wild bird included in Schedule ZA1;]
(b)takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or
(c)takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person has in his possession or control—
(a)any live or dead wild bird or any part of, or anything derived from, such a bird; or
(b)an egg of a wild bird or any part of such an egg, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally [F14or recklessly]—
(a)disturbs any wild bird included in Schedule 1 while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; or (b)disturbs dependent young of such a bird, he shall be guilty of an offenceF15.
[F16(6)For the purposes of this section the definition of "wild bird in section 27(1) is to be read as not including any bird which is shown to have been bred in captivity.
If this is felt not to be strong enough to enforce (but it must be as it is a law), then a new bye-law could be written - I understand that the Coalition Government are relaxing the rules on setting up local government bye-laws.
This would also be a very useful addition to the new zero-tolerance enforcement people, so I have written to the CSU Manager asking if it can/will be included in their responsibilities. I have also written to the legal people at DDC for their view.
There is also the problem of illegal fishing, so a notice can be put up about that too and as this is illegal, it can be enforced by these new enforcement officers.
I'm not sure why the River Dour Steering Group haven't picked up any of this - in fact I thought it had folded.
Roger
It is only about 100 yards long and can only be seen from the Mill garden or where it joins back into the river Dour.