I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone; my apologies if it has been.
This planning application - https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/02210110 - affects the Pennine Way. It crosses the Way, and would turn a stretch of the paved parts and a tranche of the peat bog into a vehicular road as part of a plan to build a long road up the moor from the Manchester Road near Diggle up to Black Moss reservoir.
There's a large number of documents supporting the submission and they're really difficult to wade through, but then I'm no planning application expert and don't know how to sift through them. It's clearly a major project and would change the landscape considerably.
The plan, if I've understood it correctly, would transform the whole area from being one of the more remote bits of the south of the Pennine Way to being one easily accessible by road.
This is the one to read initially.
https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/system/download/f/80940615
It explains why they want a permanent access track (because of what happened to the reservoir near Whaley Bridge) and where they plan to put it and how they plan to minimise the effects on the landscape.
I haven't read it properly yet.
Thank you! I've found the bit referring to an Environment Agency 'advice note' (I have no clue what one of those is) about their recommended actions. Seems weird that the application mentions Whaley Bridge - there's no dam at Black Moss - but perhaps there's something somewhere in all the other docs. I'm going through them now.
Are you sure there is no dam? It may not be as obvious or tall as at Whaley Bridge.
There must be something up there that requires inspection, it's not natural lakes.
I'd hesitate to call it" one of the more remote bits of the south of the Pennine Way". As the crow flies Black Moss res is less than a mile from Standedge Cutting and the A62.
I would not hesitate to call it remote, and don't. I can't think of another southern part of the way that is more remote, if one is defining "remote" by distance from highways. Tintwhistle possbly?
That's why I highlighted it here: if there's a dam in danger, surely it ought to be descibed somewhere in the planning documents but, if so, I can't see that danger described.
I do know the area. They're not natural lakes: these were reservoirs built in the early 19th century.
There are two earth core dams up there, one on the Marden watershed and another on the Diggle side. There is a big push after the Whaley Bridge incident to have all such structures properly inspected at more frequent intervals. Guessing they want a road to make that happen.
Your reference to Tintwistle suggests to me that you aren't very familiar with the topography of the southern part of the Pennine Way and this is reaffirmed by your thinking that a reservoir less than a mile away from a major road is one of the remoter parts.
I don’t know the area well, I think I’ve been there but I’m not certain. What I’m saying is that reservoirs are man made and there will be something keeping the water where it is, it just may not look like a dam to you. There have also been incidents where reservoirs have burst their banks not the dam.
> What I’m saying is that reservoirs are man made and there will be something keeping the water where it is, it just may not look like a dam to you.
You're right. Both reservoirs are confined by earth dams. Black Moss has two as there's one along the NE facing edge as well. Google has street view images along each one. The dam at Little Black Moss reservoir has been breached and no longer retains water.
Whilst it would be possible to put an unsurfaced track from the Standedge road along the defacto route of the Pennine Way (as opposed to the right of way), it would yet again erode the feel of another part of our upland landscape.
All 'risk assessments' should include not only the chance of a problem, but also the consequence of any failure. These structures aren't in the same league as Whalley Bridge both in terms of the height or volume of water retained or in the extent of the catchment area and potential for flash floods, etc. From what I remember the collection leats are not working which again reduces the extent of the catchment.
I would have thought quad bike access for inspection and then spending the 'road money' on maintenance would constitute due diligence by the Canal and River's Trust.
Bleaklow Head is more than twice as "remote" as Black Moss Res and the same applies to Black Hill and the higher parts of Kinder to a slightly lesser degree. That's just in the Peak District
> I would have thought quad bike access for inspection and then spending the 'road money' on maintenance would constitute due diligence by the Canal and River's Trust.
Unfortunately CRT, at the strategic level, aren't known for their creative or pragmatic thinking, or their ability to inspect or maintain their assets prior to them failing spectacularly, or their willingness to spend money on sensible things (like preventative maintenance) rather than on nonsensical vanity projects (like rebranding with a new logo and replacing every single sign across the entire waterways network with identical versions just with the new logo, at vast cost). This is also the organisation who spent several million pounds more on fundraising in the past several years than they actually managed to raise. They are truly incompetent.
I suspect that if they saved money by using ATVs for access, they'd probably spend the savings on something equally beneficial. More unusable bollards, perhaps. Or to fund unlawfully evicting a few more people from the waterways.
</tangent></vent>
> You're right. Both reservoirs are confined by earth dams. Black Moss has two as there's one along the NE facing edge as well. Google has street view images along each one. The dam at Little Black Moss reservoir has been breached and no longer retains water.
> Whilst it would be possible to put an unsurfaced track from the Standedge road along the defacto route of the Pennine Way (as opposed to the right of way), it would yet again erode the feel of another part of our upland landscape.
Genuine question here: when you’re out an about in such upland landscapes, do you not get the overwhelming feeling that they’re “managed” anyway? Because I do; the moors in England do not even give me an experience of being in “nature”. Patchy burnt heather, erosion tracks in the peat from farmers quads, random plastic trays of stuff (food? poison?), discarded old fence/new fence/other associated farming/grouse shooting crap, clearly dammed water bodies etc. A gravel road would make very little difference to my experience in such places to me personally; and I’m genuinely intrigued if others see these landscapes through a different lens that such a track would destroy.
Thanks Jim Lancs, marsbar, tomsan91 - entirely right, the dams are described in the supporting docs, referred to as "impounding" dams. There are so many documents that the single mention is quite hard to find. The initial rationale for the works sounds serious - "The reservoirs are regarded as Category A high risk structures with large loss of life in the event of a breach" - but then, when one looks at the doc cross-referenced as explaining this risk, it only describes the fact that the reservoir supplies the Huddersfield Narrow Canal, and goes on to talk about property values and so on, rather than any situation that would involve "large loss of life". Unless I'm missing something potentially catastrophic about loss of canal water supply, their rationale just doesn't seem to add up.
Tom V - if you have nothing of value or relevance to contribute, and only wish to cast shade, why comment? This isn't Twitter.
> Genuine question here: when you’re out an about in such upland landscapes, do you not get the overwhelming feeling that they’re “managed” anyway?
Absolutely. But I also appreciate that what we have in this country is a very limited and finite amount of open wild space. I'm conscious that frittering it away by any number of 'little incursions' will ultimately add up to significant loss. Wind farms access tracks, stalking tracks, fish farm in Scottish sea lochs, access roads to 'green' mini hydroelectric dams, new upland fences, etc have all transformed some areas and never for the better.
I think it's only right we should push back against any of these changes as they are very easily 'justified by some' but are always detrimental and rarely reversed.
I have plenty of value to contribute: for a start, a more accurate description of the relative "remoteness" of Black Moss compared to other parts of the southern Pennine Way. I provided three examples for anyone not familiar and who might have taken your estimate as sound judgement.
Sorry you're so touchy about it, but imagine if someone had said that Left Unconquerable was one of the hardest climbs at Stanage. Do you actually think that such a claim would have been left unchallenged on UKC? Or would you rather it was left unchallenged?
Either way, your comment about the remoteness of Black Moss reservoir was fairly inaccurate and if you really think being less than a mile away from the road constitutes "remote" in terms of Pennine Way sections then you must be mighty impressed by the Cheviots
Dear Tom! How fond you are of language; you seem to like invective. Perhaps you'll learn about adjectives next. Try "remote". It'll be good practice.
If I was fond of invective I would have called you a patronising tw*t. Did you mean "rhetoric"?
As for "remote", I was using it to mean distant from highways, which definition you seemed to accept at one point.
But if that definition isn't good enough, please provide one that suits you and we'll see how it applies to Black Moss reservoir.
It's likely cheaper to hire a helicopter and a pilot for a day, once a year, then check dozens of these dams, compared to building just one track.
Since the incident at Whaley Bridge it's clear that once a year is not adequate for inspection.
As it mentions in the linked document, helicopters are no use in inclement weather.
Added to which, checking dozens in a day sounds a bit like estate agents driving down your street and assessing your council tax banding at 50p per house.....
The risk is not about the canal losing its water.
The risk is of vast quantities of water suddenly flowing downhill.
Last time it happened up there (210 years ago) 6 people died and an entire cottage was completed demolished by the water flow.
I looked for the risk assessment for those reservoirs. It isn't publicly available. However I understand that there is potentially a school and a village at risk.
> Reservoir inundation mapping for reservoirs under the 1975 Reservoirs Act is covered by the Civil Contingencies Act and the information has a national security status. The National Protocol for the Handling, Transmission and Storage of Reservoir Inundation (Flood) Maps for England and Wales classifies reservoir inundation mapping according to map types and reservoir inundation mapping would not be available for public release.
> Added to which, checking dozens in a day sounds a bit like estate agents driving down your street and assessing your council tax banding at 50p per house.....
I'm presuming they are visually checking integrity. Not taking a flask and picnic.
If "visually checking integrity" means simply confirming that none have actually collapsed then a couple of dozen a day is probably a feasible target.
It's an unusual reservoir when you look at it. It has a dam at either end, the main one overlooking Diggle and a smaller one overlooking Marsden. It was a breach of the latter which caused 6 deaths in the early 1800s, apparently, but the relative sizes of the dams might indicate that the potential for damage is greater in Diggle. It makes sense that both these villages are affected by it since they are at either end of the Standedge section of the Huddersfield narrow canal cited as a reason for the reservoirs continuing usefulness.
> . . . since they are at either end of the Standedge section of the Huddersfield narrow canal cited as a reason for the reservoirs continuing usefulness.
I'm curious about how 'useful' these reservoirs really are today. The upper level of the Huddersfield narrow through the tunnel was originally fed from about ten reservoirs including these two at Black Moss and Swellands. (As an aside, it's rather impressive that some reports have the water from Redbrook dropping straight down the air ventilation shaft into the canal 480 ft below! I presume Brun Clough reservoir does the same as this too has been build directly over the tunnel). The Bing air photographs have clearly been taken during a dry spell and whereas the other canal supply reservoirs are very low (hardly enough to sail on Redbrook), not a drop has been released from Black Moss and Swellands. Then if you look at old OS maps the leat from Black Moss to Brun Clough is clearly seen following the contours to the NW, but it looks completely overgrown in the air photos. It is possible that the stream from Little Black Moss reservoir might have been used for access to the canal, as Diggle Reservoir has been built up from the valley bottom and is bypassed by the stream going past.
I'm also not 100% sure how the water got from Swellands to the canal. Since it was built in the mid 19th century, the water supply reservoirs for Huddersfield town have been built in the valley below. So it can't be a simply river regulating supply. There is a possible line of a leat traversing the hill on the OS map following the 380m contour round to Redbrook (from a valve access shaft which can be seen at the bottom of the dam) which would make sense, but again it doesn't look to be complete or functioning these days.
So if they are simply attractive, almost natural looking 'tarns' up on the moors, why ruin them by bulldozing an access track? There must be a more imaginative management scheme. I think I would lower the threshold of the spillways by six feet (removing 250,000 m3 from the risk) and leave them be.
I can imagine the surprise of a bargee back and footing his way through the tunnel when someone opened a stopcock 480 ft above him!
How would your idea of lowering the threshold affect the shape/surface area of the reservoirs?
> I can imagine the surprise of a bargee back and footing his way through the tunnel when someone opened a stopcock 480 ft above him!
I know, I so hope that the idea of the water dropping down the air vent is/was true. I've read it in some contemporaneous accounts, but I've also read that water from Redbrook is simply allowed to run down Redbrook Clough to contribute to the supply levels in Tunnel End reservoir in Marsden. Seems a much duller, but more realistic scenario.
I don't have any profiles of Black Moss or Swellands to gauge the impact of lowering their water levels. But lowering the level of an old reservoir is always seen as a good way to reduce the loads and resultant risks on the retaining walls. The big fear is always over topping of earth filled embankments. But even as it is, this would appear to be a very negligible risk here with their limited catchments and the original spillways on both being so tiny (2+ metres across?) and have obviously proved to be okay for nearly 200 years.
When we can, I think I'm going to have a good poke around these as I find it all quite intriguing. It's about 6 years since I last walked that stretch of the Pennine Way and back to the seventies when I last looked professionally at the risks involved with Peak District earth filled dams. I was on a group of consulting engineers called by Seven Trent Water Authority (iirc) to urgently brainstorm the options available to them when the bell mouth spillways on Ladybower became completely submerged and it continued to rain. It didn't take us long to assess the situation, but the STWA managers looked far from amused when our senior engineer simply said "have you tried the power of prayer?"
Walls Across the Valley is probably the best coffee table book that I never owned, but I had it out of the library a couple of times. Around £70 for a second hand copy now.
On a slightly different tack I had been walking around the Chew since I was twelve or thirteen but probably ignorant of the history, because it was only on a walk with a newcomer to the area that I first became aware of the wagonway. We were walking on the top towards Wilderness when he asked "What's that line running up the hillside?" and I had to admit I'd never noticed it before.
Nowadays there are noticeboards explaining its function in transporting clay from Ashton to the Chew Resevoir site and I've walked up it several times, even found a couple of old bolts as souvenirs.
So, if clay was a required ingredient in the construction of Chew res would that also apply to Black Moss and its neighbour/
( Someone I know did a pub quiz for Peak regulars with twenty or thirty resevoirs in silhouette but also reoriented to make guessing them more difficult. Very challenging.)
> So, if clay was a required ingredient in the construction of Chew reservoir would that also apply to Black Moss and its neighbour.
Can only assume so as puddled clay was a very familiar technique to the navvies building almost every aspect of the canals. It has been used almost universally as the waterproof 'core' in both earth and rock filled dams and seawalls, etc. About ~10% of the materials needed would be the core, so 100,000 tons in the case of Ladybower.
One of the problems with doing risk assessments of old dams is a lack of accurate records about their exact construction, without a lot of geophysical work.
The link in my first post explains why they need the reservoirs. It doesn't discuss the idea of lowering the levels though.
> The link in my first post explains why they need the reservoirs.
Does it? It says that water from these reservoirs provides a resource that forms part of an agreement between Yorkshire Water and the Trust (The Scammonden agreement). It then quotes lots of figures about the amount of water Yorkshire Water lets the C&RT have and says that in return YW can use the resources of all ten of the canal supply reservoirs.
What I can't see is exactly how much of these totals does Yorkshire Water actually take from Black Moss or Swellands and what part (I'm guessing way, way less than a fraction of 1%) of YW's reserve does this constitute? There is also no reference that I can see as to YW's attitude to the terms of the historic Scammonden agreement? Are they bothered about the stocks in Black Moss or Swellands?
I would want to be convinced that honouring an agreement signed sometime ago probably when the canal was derelict is actually necessary. Until I see YW say that Black Moss & Swellands are indispensable parts of their supply strategy, I remain to be convinced about the access road.
I agree with you. It's very nicely vague.
I should have said from their point of view. Obviously its biased.
Perhaps someone from Yorkshire water can comment? I know we have one or 2 posters who work there?
Would be interesting. I think one course of action is for the C&RT to give, free and for gratis, all the land, both reservoirs, the water and everything, for now and in perpetuity, to Yorkshire Water. Then we would see how really important this road is to a commercial body instead of an inept trust running scarred from Whalley Bridge.
Having said that I do have a tiny bit of sympathy for the C&RT. Their inception was a pretty underhand move by the Government and despite the 'balance sheet' showing billions in assets, most of them are in effect liabilities to be countered by very limited income streams. That's not to say the C&RT have made the best of the bum hand they've been served, but it is grounds for a modicum of sympathy. Or not.
Black moss would definitely fall into UUs territory if they were interested in the water as for Swellands it feeds into Butterley which if I'm not mistaken is an old storage Res for the canal and the mills of Marsden. YWs interest would be in support these provide to the River Calder in the dry months. Taking over Swellands and the rest of the group from the canal and rivers trust would be a poisoned chalice, as the maintenance would fall on YW rather than the public purse.
That would make more sense of the "Category A" risk; puzzling, though, that it isn't stated clearly and the main plank of the application. I'd have thought the public consultation would produce much more worthwhile results if it were.
I can't even be bothered to take the piss anymore. No, I do not mean rhetoric. Entirely happy to be called a patronising tw*at by someone who's actually being patronising and at the same time protesting he's not fond of invective.
Even if we do decide to say 'remote' means 'distance from public highways' - which it doesn't, as I'd assumed very user of the language knows, but it's a convenient shorthand - you will no doubt be well aware, given your professed superior knowledge of the Pennine Way, that such a definition makes e.g. Black Moss more than twice as 'remote' as Windy Gyle.
All this is completely irrelevant to my post, to which you seem able to reply civilly, except on this one personal bugbear.
I think I have been civil throughout, which is why I was concerned about being accused of using invective in my comments towards you. We must have different ideas about what invective means so if you will quote the lines where I have used this technique i will be able to understand what you mean by the word.
We also have different ideas about what remote means If it doesn't mean "distant from highways", which you seemed to accept at 22.38 on Friday, then what is your definition and the one that "(e) very user of the language knows"?
My knowledge of the Pennine Way is no better than anyone else who has completed it, though I have done the stretch from Marsden to Edale on several occasions and by different routes, once as my last day on the full walk ( could be accused of cheating by using Wilboarclough, I suppose)
I'm glad that you have decided not to take the piss any more. It's a poor reason for engaging in a UKC discussion. And I didn't call you a patronising tw*t: I said that's what would happen if I ever resorted to the invective you accused me of using.
Just checked and your reference to Windy Gyle tells me that there are now three words about which we disagree in their usage : remote, invective and highway. But leaving the last out of it, don't bother replying to this without providing a clear definition of the other two words.
That would mean about 3, 000 tons needed for Black Moss. i wonder how they got it in - packhorses?
A few musings on this one
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you if somebody says it is close to the road put the argument forward pedestrian access for inspection that has been the existing method of getting there over the last 200 years
Need for inspection after Whaley Bridge new regulations planning application states to all three vehicles weekly six journeys what is the requirement under The new instruction dictate after Whaley Bridge
Risk assessment not to show the risk assessment but to cited in the planning document seems incorrect appreciate that they have paid for risk assessment and it belongs to them however not to give general sight of it makes me wonder how great the risk is During the construction the dam failed 200 years ago a construction accident the West of the watershed drains towards Huddersfield there is a lot of ground before Marsden and not a lot of property appreciating that a likely torrent would be well channelled I do not believe that a massive capacity is held in either reservoir the topography is plain neither reservoir can be particularly deep The east side to Oldham and Diggle Has Diggle reservoir in its path however after The valley flattens and widens
A conduit runs to the west and Side of Dingle Mill cottages it then turns east heading down to Kiln Green shortly after it joins the canal this conduit is regularly maintained by the trust
Ongoing maintenance I note that the small reservoir is shown on the plan as having water good luck to anybody trying to paddle on it I’ve never seen water in it likewise many of the Conduits are not in use
I don’t know when the application was lodged I haven’t read it carefully I will try to however I have not been notified of said planning application and I am close enough to be notified and flooded I would also resisted Any application to construct a road other than temporary road plate type which could be removed after maintenance if required It is a short walk and anybody carrying out an inspection would have to be able to walk around the reservoir is a distance greater than the walk from the road
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...