Grand river scheme is just not practical

I READ with interest the letter from Derek Latham (“Heritage Port opens up world-class attraction”, September 4), and the response to it from Chris Murphy (“Fascinating vision for the Derwent Valley”, September 13).

What a grand scheme this is and, if it were to became reality, I would be among the first to try it.

Unfortunately, it can never be as a return trip down the valley by river is a totally unrealistic proposition. The Derwent is small, no much more than a brook in its upper reaches and with a summer main flow not much over 1-2 metres wide in its middle stretches. It is the home to protected fish, mammals and birds. and any weight of boat traffic as suggested would inevitably cause environmental damage.

In fact any level of unregulated boat traffic would cause damage. Unrestricted, inconsiderate, selfish and illegal behaviour of the owners of kayaks, rafts and inflatables on certain stretches of the river is causing harm and creating conflict with other water users. To extend this, to more people, even if they were competent to handle a boat or find enough water to float in would be pure madness.

I note the line in Mr Latham’s letter “campaigning to create the paddle trail”. To the best of my knowledge, the people who need to be consulted on access and use of the river have not been included and negotiation needs to come before “campaigning”. The Derbyshire Derwent is not designated as a navigable waterway and, historically, never has been upstream of the city; boats therefore are not allowed to use it. Pleasure boats are in use in certain closely-defined areas but the river is not open for use in the way Mr Latham describes.

To use the river as a “paddle trail” would take a review of land-owning, riparian, sporting and navigation rights and laws. Yes, let us bring more people in to enjoy the Derwent Valley and all it has to offer.

I wish Mr Latham and the Derwent Valley Trust well with the practical parts of the scheme – but leave the river out of the equation as it is simply not big enough. To use it as proposed would be to destroy it.

Derrick Hale, Littleover