Laxey flooding

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I would suggest that Laxey is priority given what has happened.

Taxes have been paid over the years but no maintenance has taken place, there really is no excuse.

And of course you're not going to pay, it doesn't affect you does it?

Like I just said to Roxanne. Getting rid of the trees (at great expense) does not guarantee a solution. I think the greater tax payer would not object if it did, because, as Roxanne says it would negate the need to spend a massive amount on flood alleviation work. But it wouldn't. 

[Happier diner]

11 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

And just for good measure...

The contractors have finished for the day and have left their digger and the bucket in the river. This is completely against what was agreed to by them. They might argue that no bad weather is forecast but given their previous form wouldn't you think they would be doing everything to the book? As you will see, they've put the stones back in the river too so that should the waters rise their digger will be left dry. 

FFS - can you see why I get frustrated by it all?

No one gives a shit, until it's too late. 

Are you saying the plonkers didn't see that last flood coming? DOH!

I know its emotive and history is not good, but its unlikely this digger is going to cause a flood and its not easy to take these things in and out of the river every day. 

[Andy Onchan]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

Like I just said to Roxanne. Getting rid of the trees (at great expense) does not guarantee a solution. I think the greater tax payer would not object if it did, because, as Roxanne says it would negate the need to spend a massive amount on flood alleviation work. But it wouldn't. 

You expect nature not to grow around rivers and streams etc?

[Happier diner]

Just now, Roxanne said:

No one is saying get rid of the trees - except you. 

Phantom did.

[The Phantom]

49 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

If 'you'd' paid for maintenance then it wouldn't have been necessary for 'you' to pay 67 million for the flood remedial works. That's 67 million, and counting btw.

Trees need looking after. They're not looked after. They have self seeded everywhere, especially sycamores and elm. They are on government/commissioners land. Of course a plan of maintenance needs to be implemented. None of us may want to pay for it but the resultant huge sums to put it right after the event are even less desirable.  Surely even you can see that?

Twenty years ago the trees were tiny. You could travel from Douglas to Laxey on the tram and see the entire village before you. Now, all you see until you're on the road out of Laxey is trees. 

 

That's the first thing I always notice on any old photos of the Island.  Where are all the trees? 

I think that many of the native ancient ones were chopped down in the 1800s for building, mine props and firewood.  

Everyone assumes looking at the trees now, they are natural growth, when in fact the were mostly planted by humans in the last 100 years.  

It's like those St Marks tree huggers.  It's not natural growth and it's not ancient (despite what google maps tells you) and half of them were dead and rotten.  

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I expect nature to grow around rivers and streams etc?

 

[Roxanne]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

Phantom did.

This is like trying to reason with someone with the emotional intelligence of a three year old. 

[The Phantom]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

Phantom did.

The fallen down ones that were already blocking the river, yeah. 

Not chop down all the trees.

In an ideal world, I would like the plantations replaced by native ancient mixed woodland, but it's not going to happen on any significant scale and not over any time period I would ever see. 

[Happier diner]

Just now, Roxanne said:

This is like trying to reason with someone with the emotional intelligence of a three year old. 

That's harsh. Like I said its a emotive subject I do not mean to cause upset so I apologise if I have. When I said you do not know this I meant that you did not know that the £67M could have been offset by taking all the trees down instead. The flood defences at Laxey have been deficient for years.

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

The fallen down ones that were already blocking the river, yeah. 

Not chop down all the trees.

In an ideal world, I would like the plantations replaced by native ancient mixed woodland, but it's not going to happen on any significant scale and not over any time period I would ever see. 

I didn't say all the trees, or at least that was not the context. I meant all the skinny plantation trees that were planted in the 70s. You are right that they are a mess and they are a mess in many other places than Laxey. I am not sticking up for DEFA or the DOI

[The Phantom]

13 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I didn't say all the trees, or at least that was not the context. I meant all the skinny plantation trees that were planted in the 70s. You are right that they are a mess and they are a mess in many other places than Laxey. I am not sticking up for DEFA or the DOI

It's a tricky and emotive subject for sure.  

You look at ancient native woodland and the first thing you notice is how spread out they are compared to the plantations (which are like some sort of biodiversity desert), the variety and the fact there are different sizes of trees/bushes etc, each exploiting a different niche.  What this suggests is forests are supposed to thin out as they grow and when stuff does fall it is decomposed naturally.  Only the strong survive and when trees fall naturally in a wild habitat they are not landing on houses, roads, blocking already manipulated and constrained rivers etc.  However we now have the situation where everyone thinks that every tree is good and it's bad chopping any trees down.  

Edited August 24, 2023 by The Phantom

[Andy Onchan]

10 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

The flood defences at Laxey have been deficient for years.

Wouldn't really need flood defences (as such) if the river course had been maintained.

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Wouldn't really need flood defences (as such) if the river course had been maintained.

Do you have a reference for this information or is it just a view.? 

[Andy Onchan]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

Do you have a reference for this information or is it just a view.? 

It's common sense. Isn't it? 

I know you're into 'projects' & 'contracts' etc big time but I'm really surprised that you don't understand the importance of maintenance. 

[The Phantom]

29 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Wouldn't really need flood defences (as such) if the river course had been maintained.

 

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Do you have a reference for this information or is it just a view.? 

Flood plain innit. 

The whole of lower Laxey valley would have at some point been the river bed as it shifted, meandered and flooded.  I guess the valley floor averages about 100m wide, but the building of houses has constrained the river to what, 10m on the south side? 

If you dug into the gardens of any of those houses, you'd find river bed deposits. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by The Phantom