News

Hexham Hydro Proposal

12 December 2011

Following the announcement of £100,000 being secured towards the project for hydro-power in Hexham and many comments and questions to TRT trustees and staff our Chairman, Andrew Davison has composed the response below:

'Tyne RiversTrust's name has been used on a number of occasions in connection with the discussion regarding the suitability of putting a hydro turbine in the River Tyne at Hexham bridge.

To avoid any misundertanding, I would like to put on record the Trust's position on this:

1, The Trust is a charity, whose objectives are essentially to look after the River Tyne.  In doing so, it operates on the basis of scientific / best evidence.

2, One of the river's principal assets (ecological and economic) is its diverse stock of fish (migratory and coarse).

3, Any work proposed to be undertaken in or around the river should, in our view, be carried out only if there can be certainty that it will not damage the river, its fish stocks and associated wildlife.

4, The bridge apron at Hexham is already identified by the Environment Agency (EA) as an obstruction to a wide range of fish species whose life cycle requires them to move up and/or down the river system.  The need for a more effective fish pass has been classified by them as a matter of National importance.

5, To make a new fish pass effective will requre a significant proportion of the available water flow in the river when it is at low levels.  It is critical that any hydro project does not take available water required for the effective operation of any fish pass.  We have made this point to the Hexham Community Partnership and to the EA.  The EA has confirmed that, when full details of the hydro proposal are made available, it will look very closely at the allocation of available water, as will the Trust.

6, The Trust is not opposed to the principle of the hydro schemes on the river generally, or at this location.  However, we believe that any hydro proposal must demonstrate, with clear scientific evidence, that it will not cause any physical damage to fish and other wildlife, or interfere in any way with the natural migration process (for example by noise, distraction, obstruction or reduced water flows).  We have yet to see such evidence, or indeed a full Environmental Impact Survey, in relation to the proposal for Hexham bridge.  Similarly, we have not yet seen any proposals for the monitoring of any scheme, should it be built, or for its removal in the event that practice demonstrates that it causes unforeseen harm.  Until we have seen such evidence and satisfactory proposals, we will continue to urge the relevant regulators to exercise caution when considering any formal applications for this, or any other hydro scheme in the Tyne Catchment.'