Posted at 16th December 2007 18:15The Muck Fleet
The epic voyage of three muckers up the Muck Fleet was an interesting morning in both fresh air and good company but also a trip I’d promised myself since I was a boy and never quite found the time to undertake.
There was of course, an ulterior motive. Today, we have absolutely no idea of the wording of the latest version of the Broads Authority’s Private Bill. It’s almost as if the consultation process; so ineffectively carried out in the first instance has been restarted within the limited confines of those sufficiently ill-advised to sign formal side agreements with the Authority.
My feelings about this Private Bill have already been well publicised. Had the Bill been restricted to a simple boat safety scheme, it would be on the statute book by now. Instead, this proposed legislation has been complicated by a quite remarkable display of intellectual arrogance. The Authority’s gleeful anticipation that a Private Bill should provide for their every aspiration has served them ill – particularly when they eventually realised with apparent horror that it wasn’t obligatory for the rest of the world to either accept or agree with what was handed down.
The point of the Muck Fleet adventure was to illustrate that the ‘adjacent waters’ section of this Private Bill is inconsistent and ill-researched – in fact it’s a complete mess. A letter to John Packman from John Kilner of DEFRA dating from the early days of this Bill (the one that also said DEFRA couldn’t support the name change to ‘The Broads National Park’ … and took such an indecent period to see the light of day …) referred to ‘contiguous waters’ stated:
“Again we think you will need compelling reasons to explain why these powers are necessary. And we think you need to be clear whether your motive is simply to protect your own waters or or, as the current draft seems to read simply to extend your role into protecting contiguous waters as well.”
Contiguous waters, as described in the Broads Byelaws have subsequently been re - branded ‘Adjacent waters’ but the points raised by John Kilner and DEFRA remain valid. When asked what the Broads Authority would bring to adjacent waters, the Chief Executive could only offer the greater safety provided by their Boat Safety scheme. This was and remains utter rubbish - and if he believed his own words; self delusion to boot. Take Wroxham Broad for example. Around 600 boats are moored at the Norfolk Broads Yacht Club and they have a far better safety record than any part of the area currently currently falling under Broads Authority control. The vast majority of boats moored on Wroxham Broad are licensed for the river and therefore will be obliged to comply with any general boat safety scheme. The few half - deckers that never leave the Broad may not have or need a river licence – but they would be exempt from the boat safety scheme anyway. The Norfolk Broads Yacht Club has a fine record in terms of fire and explosion and also doesn’t suffer from the derelict boats that Authority seems to find such a problem. In short, the Broads Authority cannot, in John Kilner’s words, provide:
“compelling reasons why these powers are necessary.”
Adjacent waters were defined (at least in the edition of the Private Bill considered by the Parliamentary Committee during the summer)as:
(2) For the purposes of this Act "adjacent waters" means any broad, dyke, marina or other substantially enclosed waters connected to the navigation area and from which a vessel may be navigated (whether or not through a lock, moveable barrier or any other work) into the navigation area but does not include—
(a) the river Waveney upstream of Geldeston lock; or
(b) the river Tas upstream of Trowse Bridge; or
(c) any waters under the jurisdiction of Associated British Ports or the Great Yarmouth Port Authority; or
(d) any waters which are only used, whether for mooring or navigation, by the owner of the land upon which those waters are situated; or
(e) any waters which are only used for mooring or navigation by an occupant of an adjoining residential dwelling.
Amongst other, widespread anomalies within the definition of adjacent waters, the Trinity Broads are excluded – yet the proposed Private Bill states “which a vessel may be navigated (whether or not through a lock, moveable barrier or any other work) into the navigation area”. Well; this definition includes the Trinity Broads – we know because we did it – and you’ll be able to read all about our epic adventure in the next edition of Anglia Afloat. The poor drafting of this Private Bill camouflages another conspicuous exercise in empire building by this Authority. John Kilner put it so much more politely when he said: “the current draft seems to read simply to extend your role into protecting contiguous waters as well.”
This move to extend (unaccountable) control over private property should be resisted. A more appropriate way to approach territorial aspirations would have been to accept some liability for maintenance and dredging to maintain a public navigation. I fear we have arrived back at intellectual arrogance – do they really think we’re all stupid?
Comments
There are no comments for this article at present
Category: Tourism.