Dear Everyone,

As you know  the Northmoor Weir Campaign Team has been working with the Environment Agency concerning the issues surrounding Northmoor Weir and new conversations will begin this week. I am sure you also know that the Agency had been worried that their lock keepers risked straining themselves to remove `paddles’ that allow the water of the river Thames through a weir at Northmoor in times of flood. As many of you will know better than I, this is a task that must have been done by lock keepers for as long as there have been watermills on the Thames over hundreds of years.

It would appear that the Environment Agency has done everything possible to make the equipment lighter and easier for its staff, but tests by ergonomists had suggested that
despite these efforts the lock keepers were still having to lift significant weights. Fortunately the Environment Agency made a video of its testing, and when this was examined closely, under the watchful eye of retired H&S engineer Dudley Hoddinott, it became clear that the lock keepers were using a technique to release the paddles, perhaps passed down the ages, after which the paddles almost floated to the surface making them easy to remove.  If this is confirmed by more sophisticated testing, it could mean that the lock keepers can continue to do their job, allowing the EA to further investigate more direct ways of protecting Thames-side homes from flooding.

The Weir Campaign Team agrees with Dudley Hoddinot when he says that that Health and Safety often get a bad press and it is nice to report some good news, especially if it gives an extended life to a picturesque part of our local landscape. Therefore, I am
sure that the Environment Agency will be delighted that its lock keepers have demonstrated their weir technique, and will appreciate the keen observations
that will help to guide the Agency in future tests to properly understand how
weir paddles have been operated by lock keepers over the centuries.

We will continue to keep you informed of developments as they unfold and we will be trying to establish in these meetings whether or not the modernisation plans are destined to take place. Another factor to be analysed is whether the Environment Agency has, as requested by Nicola Blackwood in her Private Member’s Motion, presented the cost-benefit analysis of the programme.

Mike Hill
Chairman: Northmoor Weir Campaign

If you have questions about what our next steps are to ensure Northmoor weir is here to stay please come to the Annual Parish Meeting at Appleton Village Hall, this Thursday May 3rd at 7pm.

We are delighted and welcome the news of a postponement and remain
committed to dialogue with the EA to retain the future of a paddle and rymer
weir in Northmoor for its full life!

EA postpones work 14 March 2012

I am writing urgently to you concerning Northmoor Weir, Oxfordshire, and the proposal by the Environment Agency to spend about £3 million, I believe unnecessarily, to
replace the present weir.  This is at a time when many households in the region live with a risk of flooding and cannot get adequate funding.  If the project goes ahead, the work could start in a few weeks.

The justification to replace the weir is based on the results of load tests to
remove paddles from the weir.  The recorded loads exceeded the levels recommended by the Health and Safety Executive.  I believe that excessive loads were measured because the tests did not replicate the normal actions of a lock keeper.  Also, the more representative steady state loads were not recorded.
Only single jerk/impulse loads were recorded which do not represent the
lock keeper’s normal lifting loads.
Consequently, I believe the test results are invalid.  However, these impulse loads are now being used to justify replacing the manually operated weir because they exceed the maximum values recommended in the HSE Manual Handling Guidance (Ref 1).

I believe the testing should be repeated by a lock keeper removing paddles in exactly the same way as the lock keeper normally does. The test procedure should be
modified to record all the loads, including the steady state loads.

I am concerned about these tests because of my experience at work and because I am a Vale of White Horse District Councillor for Appleton and Cumnor, which includes Northmoor weir.  I am a Chartered Mechanical Engineer and I have been involved in research, testing and investigation throughout my career.  I worked at the Health and Safety Executive as a Principal Health and Safety Inspector for 9 years and Technical Author of HSE publication ‘Developing and Maintaining Staff Competence’ (Ref 2).

Testing at Northmoor Weir

I have examined the video that EA made during the testing (Ref 3) with retired Lock Keeper and Team Leader Upper Thames Navigation Officer, Chris Mullineux, and read the report subsequently provided by Human Applications Ltd (Ref 4). We were
shocked to see how the tests had been carried out and the results recorded.  As a
result, I believe the test results are invalid and the testing should be repeated for the following reasons.

1. The method used does not replicate what the lock keeper normally does to remove a paddle.
2. A lock keeper, holding the force gauge on the end of a rope tied around the
   paddle, meant that he could not handle the paddle normally.
3. The straight pull to remove the paddle required much more force than moving the top of the paddle from side-to-side (levering it out using the ‘Northmoor shimmy’ method: Ref 3, video timed at 3.02 mins and 11:16 mins) until the paddle can
   be removed easily.
4. The flow of the water under the paddle was not used to help raise the paddle.  The normal lock keepers use the water flow to raise the paddle, as shown in the BBC clip on YouTube (Ref 5).
5. The simple type of force gauge used only recorded the maximum force and not the steady state force.  This ‘jerk’ force recorded is not representative of the steady state loads and forces that the Manual Handling Guidance refers to.
6. In the video recording made at Northmoor the Ergonomist says “Some problems with the tests; makes it more difficult and harder to remove them.”  These comments are not recorded in the report on the tests (Ref 4).
7. The paddles are not actually heavy, weighing between 11 kg and 15 kg depending on the length of the handle.  The lock keeper does not have to lift the paddle onto the walkway as he can use the edge of the walkway as a fulcrum to lever the paddle onto the walkway.  He can drag the paddle along the walkway or ‘walk’ it along by moving the handle slightly from side to side.  So little actual lifting is required.  I can lift a paddle with one hand.
8. The force of 603 Newtons (61.5 kg load) was recorded at Northmoor weir.  This load is excessive.  It is over four times the normal weight of the heaviest paddle.  For comparison, it is over three times the weight of the heaviest airline case.

The maximum recorded load of 61.5 kg was more than the maximum load of 25 kg recommended in the Manual Handling Guidance.  But the 61.5 kg is an impulse load, whereas the 25 kg recommended maximum refers to a steady state load.  Therefore
the ergonomist’s recommendation that the weir should be redesigned to reduce the forces and the risk of musculoskeletal injury for the lock keepers is, in my view, invalid.

The evidence is not sufficiently reliable to justify spending about £3 million to replace the weir based on the requirements of the Manual Handling Guidance.

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states that risks should be ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ – the ALARP principle.  Also, the Manual Handling Guidance (Ref 1) provides practical guidance on avoiding, assessing and reducing risks.
However, there are no records of reported accidents and incidents from the operation of paddle and rymer weirs such as at Northmoor weir.  Therefore the risk of an accident is already known to be very low.

Testimonials from Former Lock Keepers

The attached document from Chris Mullineux (Ref 6), lock keeper and Team Leader, Upper Thames Navigation 2003 – 2009, describes the operation of a paddle and rymer weir and the safety training required for lock keepers.  Chris Mullineux has also written a note on the Northmoor lock and weir and its heritage (Ref 7).  There is a the
testimonial from Colin Buddin (Ref who was the lock keeper at Northmoor for 32 years and was the Union Health and Safety Rep for about 8 years.  He is over
70 years old and still in good health.

They both testify that the loads to operate the weir are not excessive.  Also, they say that when the river level rises from a lot of rainfall lifting the paddles actually becomes easier.  In addition, if the Thames floods, it occurs one or two days after the weir has been fully opened.  So there would be no benefit from having a fast electrically operated weir.  Indeed, the reports also confirm that opening a weir too quickly could be dangerous.  In addition, Nicola Blackwood, MP, recently confirmed in Westminster Hall
that ‘the EA specifically confirmed to me in writing, and at the meeting of December 2011, that the project would not reduce flood risk in any way’ (Ref 9).

Recommendations for Repeat Testing

It is for these reasons that I believe the testing should be repeated, and I would like to make the following suggestions.

1. A sleeve is fitted over a paddle handle so the lock keeper can grip the paddle in
   the normal way.
2. The load gauge is attached between the sleeve and the paddle to measure the forces accurately.
3. The load gauge must be able to provide a continuous output of the force applied to the paddle.
4. A data recorder is used to continuously record the lifting forces to remove the paddle.
5. The
   normal lock keeper, or one of the regular relief lock keepers at Northmoor, removes the paddle in exactly the same way as he normally does.
6. The testing is managed by a Mechanical Engineer who is experienced and competent to do the tests and record the results.  I would be happy to assist.
7. An ergonomist is asked to interpret the test results and advise on any human factors involved in this work.
8. The tests should be witnessed by an experienced lock keeper, someone with experience of carrying out similar tests (again, I would be happy to assist) and a representative appointed by Appleton with Eaton Parish Council.

The measured forces should then be compared with the guideline load of 25 kg for lifting and lowering in the Manual Handling Guidance (Ref 1). If the measured loads exceed the recommended maximum loads a detailed risk assessment should be carried out, as shown in Appendix 4 of the guidance (Ref 1).  Then, if any remedial actions require funding, a full cost-benefit analysis should be carried out on all the alternative remedial actions.

A full replacement of the weir, at such huge cost, would seem unnecessary given the testimonials of the lock keepers and solutions, such as the paddles and rymers made from an alternative composite material, should tried and tested first.  This option would have the advantage of preserving the heritage of these paddle and rymer river navigation structures – unique to the River Thames.

I am writing to you at this time because the BBC archive footage makes it clear that a lock keeper can readily remove a paddle from the weir without undue exertion.  A local engineer who has studied the DVD with me to assess the problem has volunteered to make a sleeve to fit over a paddle handle and to assist if needed.
If the replacement of the weir cannot be justified on transparent economic and ergonomic grounds the project should be abandoned, and an independent
investigation should be carried out to determine how the Agency arrived at this situation.

Yours sincerely

D S Hoddinott

Dr D S Hoddinott, PhD, CEng, MIMechE

District
Councillor for Appleton and Cumnor

Vale of White Horse District Council

References

1.         Manual
Handling – Manual Handling Operations Regulations
1992: Guidance on Regulations L23.
Health and Safety Executive, Third edition 2004, ISBN 978 0 7176 2823 0

2.         Developing
and Maintaining Staff Competence, HSG 197 HSE Books 2002, ISBN 0 7176 1732 7

3.         EA
Paddle and Rymer Ergonomic Assessment, 9 April 2010, video made by Environment
Agency

4.         Ergonomics
Report of Pull Out Forces for Streatley, Northmoor and Rushey Weirs, Lisa
Rogan, Human Applications Ltd, April 2010

5.         BBC archive footage, Local (Oxford) News, 2 March 2012 and YouTube clip – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xbhh0-awFA

6.         Paddle
and Rhymer Weir Operation, Chris Mullineux, Retired Lock Keeper and Team Leader
Upper Thames Navigation 2003 – 2009, February 2012, ATTACHED

7.         Northmoor Lock and Weir, a note by
Chris Mullineux, Retired Lock
Keeper and Team Leader Upper Thames Navigation 2003 – 2009, February 2012, ATTACHED

8.         Northmoor
Paddle and Rymer Weir: Testimonial
of Colin Buddin, retired Northmoor Lock Keeper 1971
– 2003, February 2012, ATTACHED

9.         Private
Members Debate, Westminster Hall, Nicola Blackwood, MP for Oxford West and
Abingdon, 27 February 2012

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10083&st=13:30:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xbhh0-awFA

Does this look like back breaking high risk work?

An Open Letter all Web Visitors

Concerning

The Northmoor Weir Campaign.

By Mike Hill

Chairman of Northmoor Weir Campaign
Team

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wanted to write and outline the local position to date with the campaign.

You may know that the Environment Agency has withdrawn the planning application from the agenda of the Vale of White Horse planning meeting on March 1^st 2012 using different legislation that needs no planning permission.  You may also know that the Directors of A H Cornish Ltd believed (rightly in my opinion) that it was important to
obtain legal advice as a matter of urgency following the cutting of chains on the lock road gates on two occasions in two days, enabling the EA to have access along the same road. On the second of these occasions the EA turned up with members of the Thames Valley Police in order to prevent a disturbance under the Public Order Act 1986.

I am currently informed that this different legislation gives them the legal right to access land belonging to AH Cornish Ltd along the lock road whenever they choose and to what extent they choose.

We have also been informed that if AH Cornish, or anyone else connected with the land, take any form of passive resistance that prevents access, the Environment Agency have the power to, and very likely would, take action against the company which could include the compulsory purchase of the lock road.

We have been very careful, as a campaign, to keep any plans for future action very
close to our chest and this surprise action by the EA will prevent “some” of our plans taking place – but by no means all!

In a letter to the Campaign Team Members and the Parish Council on 29^th February 2012, I suggested very strongly that the campaign might well be over at a local level, as the Environment Agency appeared to have covered all their bases; they appeared to
have done this so very quickly, concerning both access and presence on the site. I expected this to be a significant blow to the team, however, NOTHING could be further from the truth and the team are more determined than ever to work even harder to
bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion!

Whilst it is true that much of our case now rests with the robust political campaign spearheaded by Nicola Blackwood MP, and her ability to advocate on our behalf at a national political level, we still have a loud, local voice that is becoming more enraged by the way members of the community have been treated by the EA!
Whist some of our activities may have been curtailed by this surprise change of direction by the EA, the fight to save Northmoor Weir is far from over!  In the words of a friend, “The fat lady may be clearing her throat, but she is not singing yet”.

In addition to supporting our local MP in her fight through Parliament, and providing as much of the background to these tragic events as possible, I believe it is now VITAL to continue our local (and national) campaign through the media, special interest groups and individuals to show the Environment Agency that it is not acceptable for a British Government Agency to behave in such a way.  I contend that any clear thinking, normal, respectable member of any community in Britain would consider this behaviour to be absolutely appalling, and not reminiscing of a democratic society. As a campaign team, we will continue to protest, advocate, challenge and call to account those who are responsible and I hope you will join us.

In closing, I want to say that the drive and determination demonstrated by the campaign team to date, from its birth as the WAG in 2010, has been absolutely first class! I am sorry that those in power are not yet listening to local reason, but we must do all in our power to make them listen!

We have upheld the virtues of a clear conscience and a clean fight; it is unfortunate that the EA does not seem to play by the same rules.  Regardless of the final outcome, I am sure that any future protagonists will think twice before they take on “Appletonians” (and
“Northmoorites”) in the future.

Edmond Burke once said:  “The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is when good people do nothing” I would therefore invite everyone in the communities that are reached by this website to do something to support the campaign and let’s make a way for Nicola Blackwood by providing our support to any national approach, as well as this
local one.

If you want to know how you can help directly, please contact anyone you know on the
campaign team…. or me…. and we will be happy to point you in the right direction.

With every good wish,

Mike Hill

….they are cute and they are protected. And we have both species living alongside the access road, the compound site and the weir. The Northmoor Weir Campaign Team is currently talking to the officials who need to confirm their presence. Once this is confirmed the EA will have to apply for permission to start the work.

As far as we know Halcrow, the developers, are aware of the possibility of the presence of otters  and badgers. Even with the  permitted development laws that the EA  are using, now that there is the possibility of both otters and badgers being there, they must carry out a full ecological survey before they start any work , otherwise they are breaking the law. If it is then found that there are otters, they have to apply for a licence to carry out work under European Law, and if there are badgers there within 30 metres of the compound, they have to apply for a licence for that too.  This comes under conservation laws.

You wonder why the EA has not carried out a survey during the planning phase? Maybe for the same reasons why they didn’t do a cost-benefit-analysis.

Dear Residents

Thank you for keeping me updated over the past 48-72 hours regarding developments surrounding planning permissions for EA’s preparatory work for the proposed rebuilding of Northmoor Weir. Having read all the email correspondence carefully, I can understand the concern and uncertainty of residents about how these matters have been dealt with.

I have spoken to the Planning Development Manager at the Vale, Mike Gilbert , who has advised me that EA has withdrawn its  planning application for the erection of a temporary compound because it is situated on operational land and therefore does not need planning permission to be granted. Access to the compound along Eaton Road does however require planning permission, and I am advised that EA is yet to apply for such permission.

Therefore I understand that preparation work cannot commence until this issue is resolved. Please see Mr Gilbert’s e-mail below which confirms the Vale’s position on this matter. I have now also spoken to Weir Action Group Chairman, Mike Hill to confirm this advice.

The second matter raised relates to permission to access Cathie Little’s property. Having called Cathie yesterday, I have now written to the EA on her behalf, providing them with a copy of a letter from her solicitor, and requested confirmation on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment has been conducted as set out in the relevant
regulations.

As many of you would be aware, following my speech in Parliament last week, I have been exploring other avenues, including the National Audit Office and the Health and Safety Executive, to establish the case for a suspension of the project while a proper cost-benefit analysis is undertaken.  I am still awaiting substantive responses on this and I will of course contact you again when I receive this.

In the meantime, please continue to keep me informed of matters on the ground. I will continue to advocate for you on this matter as best I can.

Kind regards

Nicola