Loadpit Beck gets some Love

John Franklin, our Better Becks Officer, has been working in Loadpit Beck facilitating the weir removal there.

What was the problem?

During walkovers as part of phase 1 of the ‘Better Becks’ Project, dozens of barriers to fish passage were identified within tributaries of the Middle Aire Catchment. On Loadpit Beck, a concrete ‘apron’ spanning the whole channel width was found. Installed as a reasonably over-engineered scour protection structure for the adjacent surface water outfall, this ‘apron’ has been stopping fish from progressing upstream to access good quality riparian habitat. The barrier was doing this in two ways, by creating an artificial drop in height in the channel, which many fish are unable to swim up, and by creating conditions for thin, laminar flow (like a sheet), which is challenging to swim up, as the water speed is increased, with little opportunities for rest.

 Phase 2 of the Better Becks project is all about addressing the problems found. The Fisheries Improvement Program, where funds are raised from angler’s rod licenses, was a great opportunity to cover the cost of this removal, as improving fish passage in Loadpit Beck would also help support fish populations in the fishable waters of the River Aire, 400m downstream.


…and the solution?

The works themselves, with permissions and support from Bradford Council and local landowners, were undertaken in August 2024 with Prof. Jonny Grey of the Wild Trout Trust being brought in as the principal contractor, alongside operational support from Ian and Pat from Atkinson Surfacing. Using handheld machinery, a new channel was cut into the right-hand half of the concrete apron. This was to enable retention of the scour-protecting function of the apron on the left side of the channel, below the outfall. Rather than cutting down to the channel bed, the material was cut away to retain a naturalistic channel within the concrete, to ensure fish passage, whilst also avoiding the risk of the channel scouring out in future. Sediment management was used downstream of the works to minimise fine concrete dust and silt mobilisation becoming an issue for aquatic organisms below the works.

As soon as the concrete breaker was lifted out of the water and the generator turned off, we all watched a Bullhead fish making the first journey up and above the barrier, enjoying the restful riffles of the new passable channel.

Monitoring the impact

Downstream of Loadpit Beck ART Volunteer Carolyn Robinson, who monitors river flies, says:

‘Riverfly Monitoring is a Citizen Science project that enables volunteers to gather information about the water quality of the River Aire and its tributaries. Following training and assessment, I was paired with another volunteer and together we monitored a site on Loadpit Beck that runs through Trench Meadows.

Once a month we ‘kick sample’ the site wearing wellies and using a standard net for 3 minutes, then check under large stones for 1 minute, ensuring comparable samples are taken over time. The sample is rinsed to remove unwanted debris, poured into a large tray and examined. We are looking for eight pollution-sensitive species of invertebrates that should be present in a healthy river. They are then transferred to an 8-segmented tray for counting, where we looking for 2 types of caddis flies, 4 types of up-wing flies, stoneflies, and freshwater shrimp. We also note the presence of other insects, snails or fish in the sample as well as any creatures that survive in polluted water eg leeches.

The number of each species is counted and allocated a score e.g. 1-9=1 point, 10-99=2 points, 100-999=3 points. At Trench Meadows our score has been between 8 and 14 points, we have identified all 8 target species, but not all on the same occasion. We are allocated a Trigger Level, and if our score falls below this there has possibly been a pollution event. We will check upstream of the site to look for any obvious pollution, changes in water colour etc and re-sample. If pollution is found or the score is still below the Trigger Level, the coordinator and local ecology contact are informed. Thankfully that has not happened at Trench Meadows, and it continues to be a healthy site.’

Enforcement Undertakings

An Enforcement Undertaking is one of several regulatory options available to the Environment Agency when they are considering action against a polluter.

Once agreed, it requires the polluter to admit their offence and to pay an agreed (with the EA) sum to an appropriate charity – which must then spend it on environmental improvements.

We do not believe this is a route with fewer consequences for polluters than paying a fine for a pollution offence. Just like a fine, the offender has to publically admit their guilt and the size of the sum paid to the charity is intended to be of the same magnitude as a fine imposed by the courts. More importantly, any fines imposed by a court go straight to the government’s general funds and will not be spent in a way that directly benefits the environment. Enforcement Undertakings offer a way to improve the watercourses affected by pollution. Enforcement Undertakings are in addition to any costs that polluters are compelled to pay to rectify the harm caused by their pollution.

Our Trust has decided that we will be prepared to work with polluters should they wish to offer an Enforcement Undertaking to the Environment Agency. Our catchment has benefited from several Enforcement Undertakings in recent years, which are currently funding river restoration projects run by the Aire Rivers Trust.

You can read the guidelines used by the Environment Agency for deciding whether or not to accept an offer of an Enforcement Undertaking here – how we decide whether to accept an EU for less serious offending.

It should be noted that the charity receiving the funds plays no role in the legal process for determining whether or not an enforcement undertaking is an appropriate course of action.

An enforcement undertaking can be offered only by the polluter. The offer can be made proactively, when they realise that they have caused significant pollution, or reactively, when the Environment Agency interviews them and points out the availability of an EU as an enforcement option. Proactive offers are generally viewed more favourably by the Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency periodically publish a list of Enforcement Undertaking that they have accepted.

If you are unfortunate enough to have caused pollution and would like to talk to us about a possible Enforcement Undertaking, please contact us.

Top