Posted at 28th December 2007 17:06Adjacent Waters
Blackbeard has from time to time expressed exasperation with the Internet and website chatrooms; most of which are way off-his-message for most of the time and even been known to question his credentials. Objectively; much of what is posted is frippery and some ill-informed; yet there is usually a hard core of first rate, well-informed contributions that manage to carry the day. Some postings have even been seen to be remarkably effective - surprisingly quickly. Exasperated he may be but Blackbeard’s also patently not coming to terms or dealing effectively with this new and thoroughly democratic media. It’s an extraordinarily powerful media too – something the Authority has covertly recognised by the (presumably costly) monitoring of these sites. We are aware that someone at the Broads Authority has downloaded the entire content of one less than flattering site (Wonderful thing technology – but it took all afternoon rather than happening in a Ping). The dredging petition thread for proper Broads Management on Speakers Corner attracted nearly 30,000 ‘hits’. Even the EDP 24 News Forum thread on the RSPB report on the Broads has already reached nearly 8,000 ‘hits’. These are big numbers for an area that can only boast 2,000 economically active residents. This is a powerful new media.
I hope the Muck Fleet blogging made a point about variable criteria being applied to adjacent waters but I’d like to be excused for revisiting. The definition of adjacent waters in the latest available version of the Broads Authority Private Bill reads:
“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 …”
Examples of Adjacent Waters given to the House of Commons committee enquiry were :
“Adjacent waters.
Hudsons Bay - Pound End - Daisy Broad - Hoveton Great Broad - Wroxham Broad - Hoveton Great Broad - Decoy Broad - S. Walsham Inner Broad - Ranworth Broad - Martham Broads N & S - Wheatfen Broad.
Significant Dykes.
Dilham Moorings - N. Walsham & Dilham Canal - Boundary Dyke - Crabbetts Marsh - S. Oby Dyke - Somerton Parish Dyke - Geldeston Dyke – Colman’s Dyke – Hobro’s Dyke.”
Perhaps readers may care to post errors and omissions from this list on Speaker’s Corner. There are a number! Giving the benefit of the doubt, I assumed this list was meant to be taken seriously, after all it was presented to the House of Commons – but I found it remarkably inconsistent and therefore questioned Blackbeard on the subject during the enquiry. You can read the whole H. o C. transcript on:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmobcba0607/uncorr/ucba102.htm
but for the sake of convenience, here are the operative paragraphs, taken down verbatim by a stenographer:
“260. MR CAMPBELL: I just wish to add to that that I believe that what are called Trinity Broads, Omesby, Roseby and Philby [sic], just the same as the other list of broads are very large broads. You can see them on the map. They are just to the right of number 17, between there and the sea, and are connected to the river. There is a sluice in the way. You could drag a canoe over to them. There are sailing boats on them. There is a sailing club there, there are fishing boats there, there are racing boats there; yet they are not claimed as adjacent waters. Dr Packman, I think your definition of adjacent waters is a mess, I suggest, and I think the justification you have offered of safety is flawed.
(Dr Packman) We have looked at these quite carefully and the Trinity Broads are clearly on adjacent waters [sic] because there is a two-metre difference in the water level, a sluice in the way and a road bridge, and therefore they cannot be navigated from one water to another, so they fail the definition.”
I found this an odd and unsatisfactory answer and my doubts have increased with the passage of time. I can find no reference to water levels in this section of the Private Bill. Strangely, the main (only?) reason for building a lock (which qualifies as adjacent water) is to deal with differences in water levels, so the underlying assumption must be that water levels are irrelevant to this Private Bill. Sluices by definition also have to be moveable structures and craft have to pass under bridges to move between the Trinity Broads, never mind the Muck Fleet.
I am grateful to the Howes family for refreshing my memory on some of these points.
Our winter’s morning trip up the Muck Fleet was intended to question this flawed drafting – navigation is possible and we did it to make that point. The Act also mentions ‘any other work’ presumably to stop a landowner from claiming exemption by building a dam across the access. If this was the intention, then why wasn’t Cockshoot Broad included as adjacent water – if water level is significant you can bet your life the level in Cockshoot is the same as the Bure and probably even goes up and down with the tide. The dam, just like a moveable sluice is easily bypassed by a small vessel; canoe, dinghy - or even a quarter lighter. All qualify as vessels to the Broads Authority and all are subject to river tolls.
For me this illustrates a poorly drafted Bill, which if it reaches the Statute Book in its current format will only cause additional future problems.
I suggest that this proposed legislation is not the best way to approach adjacent waters. Far more productive would have been to move one step at a time. A Private Bill covering boat safety and insurance could have been on the Statute Book by now. An offer to the neighbouring local authorities to set up a dayboat licensing scheme on their behalf might even have received public acclaim. The existing 1907 Public Health Act covers the matter and the BA could administer centrally – but fences would have to be mended with some neighbouring Authorities. The next step might be to re-establish historic public rights of navigation, mooring and fishing over all tidal waters – and nearly all of the Broads can be shown to be tidal. This could be achieved by negotiation but might equally require a single legal outing based on existing precedent. The Broads Authority has missed an opportunity to be seen to be acting as a public champion; whereas the proposed legislation carries little obvious gain for anyone beyond further expansion of the Colegate Empire. The claim that there is any major gain from wider implementation of the Broads Authority’s Boat safety scheme is laughable but a more consistent, broad - brush approach might even have prevented the Norfolk Broads Yacht Club feeling this Private Bill is aimed directly at their membership.
Overall, less than a steady political hand - and Blackbeard could have been a hero.
Comments
There are no comments for this article at present
Category: Tourism.