 | IWA Peterborough Branch www.iwapeterborough.org.uk | |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Note:You may wish to read our earlier Proposals for the provision of navigation facilities along the Rivers Welland and Glen paper before reading our latest comments.
The following are the views of the Lincolnshire and Peterborough branches of the Inland Waterways Association upon the Environment Agency’s River Welland and Glen Waterway Plan of February 2005
We have three points to make in relation to the written plan:
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".
There are few powered craft based on or using the non-tidal stretches of the rivers Welland and Glen and there are virtually no Agency navigation facilities on those rivers. This is adequately demonstrated by the list of facilities prepared by the Agency and included with the Plan. Which is cause and which is effect could no doubt be debated but those are the facts. If the Agency is to offer navigators "safe facilities that are comparable with the best in Europe" it must first provide some facilities.
At a time when a major portion of the annual navigation capital budget for the whole of the Anglian Region is being used up on works on two locks (neither of which are on the Welland and Glen) the chances of there being any major improvements on those rivers 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 budget spent on the rivers. 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 Welland and Glen 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 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 access projects. Both sections would explain how their respective budgets are set and provide realistic time limits for the carrying out of specific pieces of work so that progress could be checked at the end of the period.
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 environment not the delivery of maintenance/ improvement projects. 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 rivers for navigation and a subsidiary objective to promote general recreation along and around the rivers 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.
There are two panels only on this topic. One reminds us that there is a weed clearance programme on the river Glen. The other relates to Fulney lock and provides that "lock standards work will be carried out to provide the expected level of service at this manned lock" which begs the question of what level of service is to be expected. It is not clear that any further maintenance on either river is contemplated. Clearly if these rivers are to prosper there should be regular maintenance not only of their structures and facilities (when provided) but also of their channels.
The IWA of course accepts that major development on the two rivers is closely linked with the future of, and with the progress made in relation to, the Fenland Waterways Link. The Development panels on the map largely relate to that project. However, we would argue that the two rivers should not be put into a limbo with improvement works only being carried out to fit in with the time scales of the Link. Such major projects are notoriously uncertain and may or may not ultimately be brought to fruition. Further, there is no fixed time scale for the achievement of the Link as a whole. At the present rate of progress it is difficult to believe that the river Glen will be connected to Boston in anything less than a ten year time frame.
Given our comments under Development it is our belief that there should be created a plan for the improvement of the two rivers over a period. Such a plan would be complementary to the Link project so that works carried out under it would contribute to the success of that project if it is brought to fruition. The works carried out under our suggested plan would however be capable of standing alone should the Link project not proceed and would still result in the improvement of facilities on the two rivers. We suggest that any such plan should be independent of the time scales of the Link project to avoid any danger that the carrying out of improvements on the rivers must await the outcome of the Link project.
There is no indication from the Improve panels on the Map that such an overall plan does at present exist. The two panels merely refer to the creation of moorings at Crowland and Pinchbech West. Both sets of moorings will, in fact, serve both the short term interests of the rivers and the long term interests of the Link project. Our argument is that there should be an overall strategy: individual projects should not be tackled piecemeal.
On the question of improvements to facilities on the two rivers we provided a paper to the Agency in January 2003. We attach a further copy. That paper still represents our views subject to two amendments:
a) On page 3 there is reference to the need to construct moorings near Crowland: such moorings have now been constructed by the Agency.
b) On page 4 there is reference to the need to construct moorings at Pinchbeck. Those moorings are to be constructed by the Agency during this year.
The need for an overall plan is we believe demonstrated by the attached paper. You will see that on page 3 in relation to proposed moorings near Crowland we explained that there was no point in constructing such moorings unless first at least one span of Four Mile Bar bridge was lifted. The reason was and is that the bridge prevents all but the smallest powered craft from passing under the bridge and continuing their journey upstream. Our advice was not heeded with the result that the Agency has now constructed moorings at Crowland at some considerable cost yet most powered craft cannot access them. This is not an example of joined up government and could have been avoided if an overall improvement plan for the two rivers had been put together.
In our attached paper we have set out the minimum improvements which we believe should be incorporated into a plan and carried out over a period. Individually the items are not very expensive. We do not put forward a definite time scale for their achievement nor do we see the creation of a priority list as helpful. To this statement there is one exception, namely Four Mile Bar bridge. If there is one project which should now be undertaken in advance of all others on these two rivers it is the raising of at least one span of this bridge to allow larger powered craft to pass under it. This would immediately open up to such craft another 12 km. of water and enable them to reach the current head of navigation at the Folly River Outfall. It would also, as explained above,enable them to use the moorings at Crowland.
We have considered the Agency’s list of existing facilities. We believe it to be generally accurate subject to the points made below:
Moorings
Welland Yacht Club, Spalding: these moorings are 48 hour moorings and should be noted as such. This is the only official mooring site on either river which can in summer become over crowded.
There are moorings downstream of Surfleet Sluice which are available to use as a landing stage when passing through the lock and on a longer term basis. It is not clear to us who owns those moorings but they need to be added to the list.
Water Points
There is a water point at the Welland Yacht Club, Spalding. It is available to non members upon request.
Slipways
The slipway at the Welland Yacht Club, Spalding is available at a £5 charge.
As to the tidal slipway at Fossdyke it is both steep and muddy. We question how safe it is in use. The Agency may well wish to consider this.
[March 2005]
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||