IWA Peterborough Branch www.iwapeterborough.org.uk

THE RIVER NENE WATERWAY PLAN

The following are the views of Cambridge, Northampton and Peterborough branches of the Inland Waterways Association upon the Environment Agency’s River Nene Waterway Plan at December 2004.

The Environment Agency is the navigation authority for the River Nene and the Plan is that of its Waterway Department, a department which is primarily responsible for the discharge of its responsibilities as the navigation authority.

Our view of the written Plan is that it seems to lack focus. Indeed we have been left wondering what its purpose is. Is it

1. to act as a blueprint for work to be carried out in the next few years or
2. to be a PR document designed to give comfort to the boater / general public but to be of little practical significance?

We hope that it is intended to be a blueprint and will direct our comments on that basis. Our points are as follows:

1) The Waterway Department on reflection may well come to the conclusion that it is not doing itself any favours opening the written Plan with a Vision which reads in part;

"Through the Agency philosophy "Your Rivers for Life" we will maintain, improve and develop our river navigation so that we offer all of our users safe facilities that are comparable with the best in Europe".

Any navigator on the Nene reading this will greet it with despair and a hollow laugh. The Nene is one of the navigations in England with the least facilities and most difficult locks. At a time when over half of the annual capital budget for the whole of the Anglian Region is being used up on works on two locks (neither of which are on the Nene) the chances of there being any major improvements on the Nene seem slim. The only way in which substantial improvements will be made is if there is a very substantial increase in the maintenance and capital budgets spent on the river. At present this does not seem to be in prospect. We suggest that the Vision should be re-written to provide in relation to the Nene for an aspiration which is more realistic.

2) This is the Plan of the Waterway Department. That department’s primary purpose is to maintain and improve the Agency’s rivers in the East of England for navigation purposes. The Department also has a responsibility to promote more general recreation based on or around the Agency’s rivers (under the themes of access and non exclusion) and this is referred to in some detail later in the written Plan.

While an attempt is being made to prioritise the provision of maintenance/ improvements for navigation purposes we see no sign of prioritisation being attempted for access related purposes. More worryingly no priorities are being set as between strictly navigation and non navigation projects. This needs to be addressed and clarified.

Further, the Department has only one budget. Navigators need to be aware what part of the budget is being devoted to non navigation projects and how that division of the overall budget is being set and by whom. This should also be addressed in the written Plan.

At present the written Plan is an amalgam of plans for strictly navigation maintenance/ improvement projects together with projects for access. As a result it lacks focus. We would prefer to see a Plan which is divided: Part 1 would deal with strictly navigation projects and Part 2 with strictly recreation/access projects.

3) We have a strong objection to the content of paragraph 1.1 [Delivery Strategy] of the written Plan. It reads in part: "The improvements will be prioritised according to costs and benefits. The highest priority will be given to ensuring public safety and protecting the natural environment".

As written this paragraph gives the impression that the Waterways Department’s primary concern will be safety and the natural environment not the delivery of maintenance/ improvement projects for the benefit of navigation/water-based recreation. It may be politically correct but it has nothing else to recommend it.

Surely the written Plan should at this point record the Department’s objectives. They will presumably be a primary objective to maintain, improve and develop the navigation structures and facilities on the river for navigation and a subsidiary objective to promote general recreation along and around the river and access thereto. Having established what the Department is seeking to achieve the written Plan could then set out what the Department will have in mind while seeking to fulfil its objectives. This would be the point where it could be explained that in carrying out those objectives primary consideration would be given to ensuring public safety and the natural environment and that all proposed projects would be measured against those criteria.

4) Any worthwhile plan must have attached to it operative dates so that the period during which it will be applicable is clear and at the end of the given period those with an interest will be able to judge the progress which has been made. The Plan at present bears no operative dates: this should be remedied.

Maintenance

On this Reach there are 4 locks with mitre gates and 8 with electrically powered guillotine gates. This leaves only Earls Barton lock for possible alteration. We do not understand the reference in the Map to a plan to electrify 5 additional guillotine gates on the Reach. This must be an error. Consequently the cost figures given must also be open to question.

We agree that there are numerous maintenance backlog and safety issues on this Reach which require attention.

Improvement

The proposals on this Reach we agree so far as they go: we believe that the construction of a toilet / shower block should have a low priority

Maintenance

We agree that there are numerous maintenance backlog and safety issues on this Reach which require attention.

The Map indicates that it is planned to electrify 3 guillotines on this Reach. By contrast, a list produced by the Agency in April 2004 indicated that between Lower Wellingborough Lock and Lilford Lock inclusive it was planned to electrify:

Irthlingborough

Upper Ringstead

Woodford

Wadenhoe

According to the April 2004 list there was only one lock on this Reach which at the conclusion of the guillotine electrification work would be a manually operated guillotine and that would be Denford. We query whether plans have changed from the April 2004 list and if so why.

Because of these queries we must also question the costings attached to the work on this Reach.

Improvement

We agree the proposals on this Reach so far as they go although we believe that the toilet/ shower block should have a low priority. Assuming that the facilities at the Rushden and Diamond site (save the tap) are defunct and cannot be refurbished and maintained we believe that a replacement pump out and elsan disposal facility should be constructed in this Reach. This would be in addition to the facilities proposed in the Map.

Maintenance

There are numerous maintenance backlog and safety issues on this Reach which require attention. We are surprised that there is no mention of this in the Map and suggest that the Map be amended in that regard.

In the April 2004 list referred to earlier it was only planned to electrify in this Reach the guillotine at Alwalton. This would have left as manual guillotines:

Ashton

Cotterstock

Perio

Warmington

Yarwell

The Map talks of 5 guillotine gates being electrified but does not identify them. Again it would appear that plans have changed and again we must at this stage question the cost figures given.

Improvement

We agree the proposals on this Reach so far as they go. We believe that the creation of two toilet / shower blocks should have a low priority.

We set out other improvements which we believe to be required in addition to those mentioned in the Map. They need to be noted on the Map.

Unpredictability of Water Levels

Perhaps the problem on the river which creates the most disruption to a cruise is the unpredictability of water levels. For various reasons it can often take little more than a day’s rain to raise water levels to the point where the river has to be closed. In 2004 this happened for periods in May and September both of which are major cruising months. When the situation arises it means that journeys have to be abandoned and craft left unattended. There are no safe havens. In our view plans need to be drawn up to begin to "tame" the river.

Paddle Gear

This section applies to all pointed gates be they locks with two sets of pointed gates or locks where there is a guillotine at one end.

The experiment with BW paddle gear at Lower Wellingborough lock has been deemed a success. It gives the ability to drop paddles in an emergency. Such a facility, which is an undoubted safety feature, does not exist at present with any other paddle gear on the Nene where the gearing requires 75-80 turns to wind it fully in either direction.

We strongly believe that all pointed gates on the river should have BW style gear installed as a high priority. In many cases the Agency would in taking that action be replacing gearing which was in any event largely time expired.

Landing Stages

While every lock on the river (except Northampton Town lock) has a landing stage above and below the lock for the use of those operating the lock it is fair to say that the majority of those landing stages are either in the wrong place for safe transit or too short or both. Some are also badly dredged so that it is difficult even to reach them by boat.

We strongly believe that on safety grounds alone the resiting/ lengthening/ dredging of the landing stages should be a very high priority. Clearly the missing landing stage at Northampton Town lock should be provided at the earliest opportunity.

Electrification of Guillotines

As noted above there are still 12 guillotines which have not been electrified.

Most of the guillotines which have not been electrified are with few exceptions difficult to lift. This is one of the main reasons why potential visiting navigators are deterred from visiting the Nene.

We appreciate that many of the gates which are left are far from a domestic electricity supply which means that it would be additionally expensive to electrify them. Nevertheless we do suggest that over a period all should be electrified. Our priority sites would be Alwalton, Yarwell , Wadenhoe and Irthlingborough.

Water Coming Over Gates

There are a large number of locks where large quantities of water are to found at any time coming over the top gates. This has the following consequences:

1. The standard method of emptying a full Nene lock operated by a guillotine is to lift the guillotine a short distance and then to stop to allow the level of water in the lock to drop almost to the point where it is at the lower level. By this stage the main weight is off the door and it can be lifted to its full extent. In circumstances where water continues to come over the top gates it often does so in quantities that mean that the level in the lock does not reduce significantly. In those circumstances a navigator has to struggle to open the guillotine sufficiently to cause a reduction in the level in the lock. Physically this is a very difficult process. The only way to deal with it satisfactorily is to stop the water coming over the top gates.
2. If a boat of approaching 70 feet in length is going down in such a lock it runs the risk of having its back deck/ area swamped by the water coming over the gate. This could imperil the vessel. As to boats going up in such a lock they run the same risk in relation to their well decks.
3. When a boat is in the lock, and particularly when it is going down, the combination of water coming over the top gate and water going out under the guillotine creates turbulence which can lead to safety difficulties.

The water coming over the top gates is a consequence of the level at which the water in the pound above is maintained. The ultimate solution to the problem is the alteration of the height of the weirs which govern those pounds in order to reduce the level of water and thus ensure that water does not constantly pass over the top gates of the locks in question. We propose that over a period this work should be carried out.

Low Bridge

Upstream of Titchmarsh lock there is a particularly low bridge which presents an obstruction to craft both at normal water levels but particularly when levels have risen but are still safe. When funds are available steps should be taken to raise the height of this bridge.

We propose to discuss this issue in relation the river as a whole. The purpose of a Plan/Map promoted by the Waterway Department of the Agency should in our view be to set out what work it plans to carry out. Such work may well be carried out in conjunction with other departments of the Agency or independent third parties. The Plan/Map should however primarily be about work that the Waterway Department intends to carry out or in which it is actively involved.

Many of the Development sections of the Map are about the plans and intentions of others and about plans to which the Waterway Department is making little if any contribution. According to the Map the Waterway Department is a partner in only the Fenland Waterway Link and the Yarwell Project. For reasons given below we do wish the department to take an important lead in relation to the possible marina at Peterborough and for that reason would wish to see a panel relating to it. We question however whether any of the other projects should have a place on the Map and certainly whether they should have anything more than a passing note. In fact the Development sections of the Map in total take up at least as much space as the Maintain and Improve sections which do set out what the Agency itself intends to do. We have contrasted the Develop sections of the Nene Map with the corresponding sections of the Ouse Map. The Agency is a partner in all 5 of the projects mentioned on the Ouse Map.

In short, in our view if the Map is intended as part of a blueprint, and not as PR, it should be honest and provide a true record of the extent to which the Department is involved in navigation and other projects on the Nene.

We turn now to consider the individual panels starting from Northampton.

BW Northampton Marina

This project is at least related to navigation but it is not one in which the Agency Waterway Department is involved. It is worthy of a note only.

Nene Regional Park

This appears to be a project in which the Agency’s Waterway Department has no involvement. It has no place on the Map.

Stanwick Lakes Development

This is an environmental and general recreational project. The only direct relevance to navigation is the suggestion that a marina might be developed here. Such a development would be welcomed by us. However, the Agency’s Waterway Department does not appear to be actually and actively involved in this project. It does not therefore have any valid place on the Map.

Yarwell Project.

This is largely a visitor attraction project. The panel indicates that a potential benefit to boaters could be the improvement of the moorings in this location. As explained in our comments on the lists of existing facilities the current moorings are in poor condition and very short. If they were to be improved and lengthened and were designated as public moorings (i.e. not just for visitors to the NVR) then this would be a positive benefit. We note that the Agency’s Waterway Department is actively involved in this project and would therefore accept that it should have a panel on the Map.

Peterborough City Marina

This is clearly potentially an important development for navigators on the Nene and indeed those using the Middle Level and any of the other Links which are subsequently built. The main danger is that commercial pressures could lead to the development ultimately not being a marina in the true sense. We have in mind the experience at Stanground Peterborough. When that project was originally muted it was planned as a marina with housing adjacent. What was actually built was a housing development where many of the houses had their own moorings. This must not be allowed to happen on what is probably the only remaining site for a marina in Peterborough. We believe that the Agency’s Waterway Department should take a much higher profile in relation to this proposal and should seek to ensure that what is built will be of use to, and benefit, the general boating public. We agree that this project should appear as a panel on the Map.

Fens Waterways Link

This is the most important project in the area for navigators and should clearly have a large panel on the Map. We have no objections to the narrative provided but would like to see mention of the relevance to the Link and to the Peterborough area of the Bedford – Milton Keynes Link which would permit through transit for broad beam craft across the eastern counties from Boston to the Grand Union canal at Milton Keynes and serve further to increase boat traffic in the Peterborough area. In our view the two projects are complementary.

1) We must first question for whose benefit the lists have been prepared. If they are intended to record the facilities available to the general boating public (with or without a charge) then they contain substantial errors since they include moorings which are truly private (i.e. to which the public has no admittance even on payment of a charge) and boat club moorings. Boat clubs on the Nene have permanent moorings for their own members and in most cases very limited visitor moorings available to members of the ANRC clubs. Indeed there are often insufficient visitor moorings for such associated club visitors. There are no visitor moorings for those not members of ANRC affiliated clubs.

If, on the other hand, the lists are to be a snapshot of every facility on the river whether available to the general boating public or club members then we suggest that there should be a second list which only records facilities available to the general boating public with or without payment. Further, the item "moorings" should be broken down to record whether permanent or visitor moorings are available. Truly private facilities will have no place in either list.

We believe this to be an important issue. Growth in the number of boats on the river is likely to come largely from visitors. Visitors by definition will not be members of the Nene boat clubs. The Agency in setting its plans for development must concentrate on the needs of visiting boaters. In our view it should start from a list of currently available facilities open to the general boating public and then build from there.

2) There is a related issue. If the Agency intends to publicise the availability of visitor moorings (with or without a charge) it should ensure that those moorings meet a minimum standard. On the Nene there are visitor moorings where there is no signage and consequently no indication of their status or of any time limitations on visits. Equally there are moorings without anywhere to tie craft; all such moorings should have T bollards placed at appropriate intervals. Most importantly of all some moorings which are on the riverside are against banks which are now severely eroded. This makes the act of mooring unsafe. We have drawn attention to these deficiencies in commenting on individual moorings.

3) In considering the lists of visitor moorings we have assessed how long is the length of the mooring available in each location. There are some locations where the available length is very limited.

4) We set out on the following pages our detailed comments on the lists of facilities in each Reach. Where we have recorded the word "ADD" it means that we are noting a facility which has been omitted from the Agency’s list and needs to be added.

EA Northampton Washlands: a note should be included to the effect that these moorings are only available during summer months.

Northampton Boat Club: these moorings should for the reasons given in the Preliminary Points only be included in a list of boat club moorings.

Billing Aquadrome: a note should be included to the effect that visitor moorings are available for a charge.

Cogenhoe Mill: there are no signs suggesting that these are visitor moorings and there are no mooring facilities e.g. T bollards.

ADD There are public visitor moorings above Town Lock at Northampton. There are no signs indicating that they are public or the terms of use.

"EA/ Northampton BC": it should be made clear that the reference is to Northampton Borough Council not Northampton Boat Club.

So far as we are aware the remaining information in relation to this Reach is correct.

Above Town Lock Northampton: ample mooring space

Midsummer Meadow: about 47 feet

Washlands; about 160 feet

Billing Aquadrome: Visitor Moorings: only about 20 feet

Cogenhoe Mill: about 300 feet

Wellingborough Borough C

Rushden & Diamonds

Willy Watt’s Marina: Ringstead

Woodford Marina: Woodford

Mill Marina

EA/ Northants CC

EA

Middle Nene Cruising Cl

Kings Head

Wellingborough Borough C: there are in fact two separate public moorings on Wellingborough Embankment. Both are signed.

Willy Watt’s Marina, Woodford Marina and Mill Marina: there are no visitor moorings available at any of these sites even on payment. The sites have only permanent moorings available. We would argue that they should not be included in any lists of visitor moorings available to the general boating public.

Islip; these mooring are in fact provided not by the EA but by the Middle Nene Sailing Club. They are 48 hour visitor moorings. They are signed but not with EA signs. The bank here is badly eroded and needs to be improved.

Middle Nene Cruising Cl: these are not, as indicated, public moorings but belong to the club. As such, and for the reasons given in the Preliminary Comments, they should only be included in a list of club moorings.

ADD: there are EA public visitor moorings immediately below Titchmarsh lock. These moorings are in good condition. They are signed as EA public moorings.

Some of the notes given re water points are in error. We correct them as follows:

Rushden & Diamonds: the water point is still useable as are the moorings. None of the other facilities is currently operational.

Willy Watt’s Marina and Mill Marina: water is available but a note should be included to the effect that it is only available on payment.

EA King’s Head Wadenhoe: this tap is U/S not D/S of Wadenhoe lock (on King’s Head land)

N. B. The last marina in the list is known as Woodford Marina not Woodford Riverside

We believe all the other entries to be accurate.

Wellingborough Borough C: Embankment: the two lengths together total about 200 feet.

Rushden & Diamonds: there is about 250 feet available but the moorings are very busy and full particularly because to moor in Wellingborough overnight is not considered safe.

EA/ Northants CC, Thrapston: about 90 feet in total

Middle Nene Sailing Club, Islip: about 150 feet.

EA, immediately below Titchmarsh lock: about 60 feet.

Oundle Marina: add "charges apply"

Private: the two sites marked "Private" should be deleted for the reasons given in the Preliminary Comments.

Elton Boat Club: delete from any list of facilities open to the general boating public.

Elton Estates: it is not accepted that there are public visitor moorings on this site.

NB Error: there are no size restrictions on these moorings. The size restrictions are on the Elton BC moorings.

Haycock Inn: again there is no signage to indicate that this is a public mooring and there are no T bollards or other mooring points. Further, if it is to be promoted as a public visitor mooring it needs improvement. At present craft have to moor against a steep grass bank over which boaters then have to climb. There are obvious health and safety implications.

Nene Valley Railway: there is no signage that this is a public visitor mooring: improvements are required if this is to be promoted as a public mooring. Much of the bank is washed away and it is therefore difficult to moor. There are no T bollards or other methods of mooring.

Peterborough Cruising Club: as Elton BC

Peterborough Yacht Club: as Elton BC

Boat House PH: there is no signage to indicate whether this visitor mooring is public or belongs to the public house. We do query the statement that it is for patrons. We believe that the moorings were installed by the Peterborough Development Corporation and are therefore public. This needs to be investigated further. The moorings are not being maintained and some of the decking is now defective.

Barnwell: this (EA) water point is located on the landing stage above Upper Barnwell lock. When being used by a boater use of the landing stage for lock working purposes is impossible [with health and safety implications]. We cannot see where the tap could be relocated in the immediate vicinity. We suggest that in the interests of safety the tap be removed and a replacement sited elsewhere on the river. Please note that the existing tap is of the push and hold variety. When filling the multi gallon water tank of a narrow boat it is a physical impossibility to hold down such a tap for say 20 minutes. All such taps should be of the ordinary variety with a thread on the spout and contained in a locked cabinet for security.

Fotheringhay: this (EA) water point is also sited wrongly. In this case it is impossible to moor a craft safely to use the tap. Again there are health and safety implications. There is in this case ample space nearby to resite the tap so that it can be used by craft which are safely moored.

There is an additional slipway which you have not noted. It is beside the moorings which are near the Boat House PH. Who owns it and the conditions of use are unclear. Again we believe that it was created by Peterborough Development Corporation.

There is a refuse disposal facility available in the service block on Peterborough Embankment. It is concealed behind a door which is operated by an EA key. There is no signage so that the general boating public is unaware of its existence. This needs attention.

Please note that Oundle Cruising Club is at Oundle not Islip as stated.

We believe all other entries to be accurate.

Oundle Marina: about 70 feet available for visitor moorings

Fotheringhay: effectively unlimited

Elton Estates: effectively unlimited

Haycock: about 150 feet

Nene Valley Railway: about 30 feet

Ferry Meadows: they are extensive (about 400 feet) but frequently full.

Boat House P H: of sufficient size to take 3 medium size narrow boats

Embankment Peterborough: unlimited

IWA Peterborough Branch www.iwapeterborough.org.uk

home The IWA events contacts waterways links