At its meeting on 28th September 2007, the Broads Authority considered a paper submitted by the Chairman and Chief Executive. They proposed that the procedure should be altered and that vacancies on the Committee should be advertised for open application and that appointees should be chosen by a selection panel, following interview. The paper was deferred for later consideration because the members of the Authority considered that insufficient consultation had been carried out prior to putting forward the proposals.

The Broads Authority subsequently circulated a questionnaire to 23 organisations they considered should be consulted. NSBA was included on that list.

A copy of the questionnaire and NSBA’s response is available for download here.

The NSBA sees this as an attempt to negate the effect of changes won during the negotiations over Navigation Committee powers under the Private Bill. It is watching the situation closely and will seek to maintain the toll payers’ voice, particularly at a time of major toll increases.

Philip Ollier
Executive Secretary, NSBA
9th January 2008

NSBA submitted a response whose content can be downloaded here (in PDF format).

A further consultation based on the results of this one is expected at the end of 2007.

Please click here to view (or print) a copy of the BMF response.
or click here to view (or print) a copy of the RYA response.

Philip Ollier
Executive Secretary, NSBA
24th July 2006

Membership consists of 39 affiliated clubs and associations, themselves representing around 9,000 boating enthusiasts and around 1,000 individual members from all parts of the UK, with an interest in boating of all types on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads.

Individual and affiliated membership has increased significantly in the last eighteen months reflecting, we believe, increasing concern about the management of our unique navigation.

NSBA is affiliated to the Royal Yachting Association and works closely with the RYA on matters affecting boating interests on the Broads.

Our objectives are:

• To serve, protect and promote the interests of private users of pleasure craft in Norfolk and Suffolk;
• To coordinate the regatta fixtures of affiliated clubs and open regatta committees and to publish annually a handbook (The Green Book) incorporating a consolidated fixture list.
• To cooperate with other organisations concerned with the interests of boat users in Norfolk and Suffolk or with matters affecting those interests;

The Private Bill
In April 2006 the Broads Authority announced its intention to promulgate a Private Bill "to seek additional powers to manage the navigation safely".

NSBA is concerned that the Authority is going well beyond this stated intent and is in fact seeking to alter the delicate balance between its three objectives, enshrined in the 1988 Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act. These are:

• Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads;
• Promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public; and
• Protecting the interests of navigation.

NSBA emphasises that it supports the Authority's intention to improve safety on the navigation by introducing the Boat Safety Scheme but resists strongly the provisions within the Private Bill which appear to reduce the importance placed on protecting and, hopefully, enhancing the interests of the navigation and its users.

Detailed responses to the contents of the Second Draft

Part 2 Clause 4 Alteration of name of Authority and Area
The Bill seeks to alter the name of the Authority and the Area to incorporate the phrase "National Park", but it does not seek to apply the 1949 National Parks Act to the Broads. In NSBA's view this is a pointless exercise, and one which will lead to confusion and conflict. The 1949 Act lays down a set of criteria and a procedure for designating an area as a National Park. This process is overseen by the Countryside Agency. By wishing to acquire the name without submitting to the prescribed process the Broads Authority is creating an ersatz "National Park".

There seem to have been two arguments put forward to support this idea; improved marketing of the area to tourists and better access to funding. NSBA finds neither argument convincing. Marketing of the area would be better based on the experience available to visitors and we find the suggestion of improved access to funding weak in the absence of information on the potential sources and amounts of funding. The Authority currently obtains its funding approximately 30% from tolls, 60% from the UK government national parks budget and 10% from elsewhere. Changing the name will not increase the income from the tolls. The main slice of government funding already comes from the national parks budget. There is no guarantee that a change of name will increase the size of that total budget, nor the share which is awarded to the Broads. The other sources of funding are mainly project based and hinge on meeting funders' objectives. The name of the organisation is peripheral to attracting funding and the current description of the Broads as "A Member of the National Parks family" should meet all the marketing objectives that would be met by using a name like Broads National Park.

NSBA accepts the statements of both the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Broads Authority that there is no intention by the Authority to adopt the Sandford Principle. Nevertheless NSBA is aware that the Authority has received strong representations that, if it wishes to call itself a National Park, it should subscribe to the Sandford Principle (that, in the event of conflict between the Authority's three purposes of conservation, recreation and navigation, the conflict should always be resolved in favour of conservation). The Authority has suggested ways to defuse this pressure which involve either changing the name of the area but not the Authority, or modifying the 1988 Act's purposes of the Broads Authority to include an overarching test of sustainability - possibly Sandford by a different mechanism. NSBA does not support any change which alters or may alter the delicate balance between the Authority's three purposes. It notes that the argument advanced in 2005 for modifying the wording of the Authority's purposes under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act was a stated wish to bring the Authority's purposes more into line with those of the "other" National Parks. Now, twelve months later, the Authority is suggesting a move out of line.

Part 3 Clauses 5 - 11 Regulation and Management of Navigation Area
NSBA is aware that the Authority is in discussion with national boating organisations on these matters and, at this stage, is content to leave detailed scrutiny of these clauses to that arena.

Clause 12 - Registration
NSBA does not oppose the requirement for vessels to be registered. However, it believes that, as currently drafted, there is potential for problems to arise in the case of visiting recreational vessels, not normally based on the Broads, and craft newly constructed or repaired on the Broads but not intended for use on the Broads. We believe the Authority should be encouraging recreational craft based elsewhere to visit the Broads and should also be providing a supportive environment for the local boatbuilding industry. It would be unfortunate if the wording of the Bill were to defeat these objectives.

Clauses 13 - 18 Standards, Insurance, Inspection, Removal of vessels and Power to require information
NSBA fully supports the introduction of the requirements for vessels using the Broads to be covered by third party insurance and accepts that the Broads Authority may exempt small, non-powered craft. It will continue to recommend to its members that all types of boats should be so insured.

Again, NSBA believes that, as currently drafted, there is potential for problems to arise in the case of visiting recreational vessels, not normally based on the Broads, and craft newly constructed or repaired on the Broads but not intended for use on the Broads. We believe the Authority should be encouraging recreational craft based elsewhere to visit the Broads and should also be providing a supportive environment for the local boatbuilding industry. It would be unfortunate if the wording of the Bill were to defeat these objectives.

Clause 19 Licensing of Hire Craft
We welcome the statement in the Chief Executive's letter of 19th June to our Chairman that the definition of hire and charter will be modified to exclude arrangements between friends and non-commercial arrangements by youth groups, sailing clubs and others and we look forward to seeing the final wording. The newly inserted definition of time share should be amended to exclude genuine co-ownership by friends and family or racing syndicates.

Clauses 20 - 27 Wake Boarding and Water Skiing
NSBA reiterates its position that the ideal arrangement would be to provide a dedicated closed broad for the pursuit of waterskiing and wakeboarding. Failing that, it will not oppose waterskiing on the Broads under suitable management arrangements. However, for reasons of wash and the safety and enjoyment of other river users, wake boarding is not in its view a suitable activity on the Broads.

Clause 28 Extension of the navigation area
NSBA supports bringing the Lower Bure and Breydon Water into the navigation area.

Clause 29 Agreements with others
Again, NSBA has no objection to this provision

Clause 30 As to Water resources Act 1991
Again, the NSBA is aware of discussions between the Authority and national boating organisations on this clause and is, at this stage, content to leave detailed scrutiny to that arena.

Clause 31 Removal of vegetation, etc
NSBA supports the intention of this clause.

Schedule 6
NSBA has grave concerns about the proposed changes to the constitution of the Broads Authority. It regrets the Authority's actions that appear to reduce the level of navigation expertise available on The Broads Authority and to reduce the importance placed on navigation in the affairs of the Authority (which could be seen as acting contrary to its duty to deal even-handedly with its three purposes; conservation, recreation and navigation) and will continue to work with national boating organisations to influence decisions on this issue. Therefore NSBA opposes the changes detailed in (5) of this schedule.

NSBA believes it is important for the separate navigation account to be maintained. Actions taken by the Authority in recent years have meant that it is not trusted by the majority of toll payers to deal fairly and transparently with navigation income and expenditure. This was acknowledged by the Vice Chairman of the Authority at a recent Navigation Committee meeting. It is important that the Authority demonstrates transparently, by means of a separate, ring-fenced account, that all income received from tolls and from other sources for the benefit of the navigation is, in fact, spent on the navigation and for the benefit of the navigation.

The Broads Authority has recently re-aligned its internal structures to create a "waterways" division. In defiance of the dictionary, "waterways", in Broads Authority parlance, is taken to mean something other than navigable watercourses. Thus the Broads Authority financial accounts for its "waterways" division cannot be taken as a clear and transparent record of spending on the navigation. For that reason, it is vital to keep distinct "Navigation Account" records if toll payers are to be accurately informed of where their money goes.

NSBA has some concerns about the definition of Navigation Expenditure given in the second draft of the proposed Bill:

"the expenditure which the Authority incurs in respect of its functions under Part II of this Act and under the 2007 Act:"

This would appear to say that expenditure incurred under Part II of the 1988 Act and all expenditure incurred under the Act arising from this proposed Bill would be included as navigation expenditure. Thus, for example, all costs arising from changing the name of the Authority might be charged to the Navigation Account. This may be poor drafting but NSBA would welcome an assurance that this is not the intention.

It has been stated that the maintenance of a separate Navigation Account imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on the Authority. NSBA believes that modern computerised accounting systems, properly used, would mean a negligible administrative burden from maintaining the separate account

The maintenance of the separate account would go a small way towards demonstrating the Authority's willingness to account transparently for the funds it receives from all sources for the benefit of the navigation. Its removal will increase suspicion that there are other reasons behind the removal of the account.

At the last Navigation Committee there was a suggestion that the Bill might allow the Authority to merge the Navigation and General Accounts, but only at such time as that merger was unanimously agreed by all the relevant boating organisations (including RYA, BMF, IWA, BHBF, NSBA). NSBA would be prepared to consider a proposal along these lines, but much would depend on the wording.

Schedule 7
There is no reason for, nor resultant benefit from repealing Section 9(8) of the 1988 Act. The 1988 Act carefully lays down how the Navigation Committee should work. The Committee has worked successfully within the terms of the 1988 Act since the inception of the Broads Authority and is widely respected by Broads boaters for so doing. NSBA therefore opposes the repeal of Section 9(8) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.

Further Steps
NSBA is concerned that, according to the Authority's published timescale, this is the last complete draft of the Bill which will be released for public consultation. We believe that the Bill is far short of a suitable state to go forward for consideration by parliament in an uncontested procedure. Consideration of any future proposed wordings will only be reasonably effected within the context of one or more further complete consultation versions and we would urge the Authority to prepare a third draft incorporating our suggestions and those of the national boating organisations.

Philip Ollier
Executive Secretary, NSBA
12th July 2006

NSBA
The Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association was formed in 1894.

Membership consists of 39 affiliated clubs and associations, themselves representing around 9,000 boating enthusiasts and around 1,000 individual members from all parts of the UK, with an interest in boating of all types on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads.

Individual and affiliated membership has increased significantly in the last eighteen months reflecting, we believe, increasing concern about the management of our unique navigation.

NSBA is affiliated to the Royal Yachting Association and works closely with the RYA on matters affecting boating interests on the Broads.

Our objectives are:

• To serve, protect and promote the interests of private users of pleasure craft in Norfolk and Suffolk;
• To coordinate the regatta fixtures of affiliated clubs and open regatta committees and to publish annually a handbook (The Green Book) incorporating a consolidated fixture list.
• To cooperate with other organisations concerned with the interests of boat users in Norfolk and Suffolk or with matters affecting those interests;

The Private Bill
In April 2006 the Broads Authority announced its intention to promulgate a Private Bill "to seek additional powers to manage the navigation safely".

NSBA is concerned that the Authority is going well beyond this stated intent and is in fact seeking to alter the delicate balance between its three objectives, enshrined in the 1988 Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act. These are:

• Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads;
• Promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public; and
• Protecting the interests of navigation.

The NSBA supports the Authority's intention to improve safety on the navigation but resists strongly the provisions within the Private Bill which seek to reduce the importance placed on protecting and hopefully enhancing, the navigation.

The provisions of the Bill are:

1. To change the name of the Authority to the Broads National Park Authority and the area to The Broads National Park;
2. To give the Authority powers to issue General and Specific Directions to vessels in the navigation;
3. To give the Authority powers to require vessels using the navigation and contiguous waters to be registered;
4. To give the Authority powers to require categories of vessels using the navigation and contiguous waters to comply with (unspecified) construction standards;
5. To give the Authority powers to require categories of vessels using the navigation and contiguous waters to carry insurance cover;
6. To require hire boat operators to obtain a licence from the Authority;
7. To give the Authority powers to regulate waterskiing and wakeboarding on the Broads;
8. To extend the navigation area to include Breydon Water and the Lower Bure (currently part of Great Yarmouth Port Authority);
9. To give the Authority powers under the Water Resources Act 1991;
10. To give the Authority powers to instruct riparian owners and occupiers to trim or remove vegetation affecting the navigation and on default, to enter land and carry out the work;
11. To alter the constitution of the Authority;
12. To remove the requirement to maintain separate accounts for the receipt and expenditure of River Tolls;
13. To repeal section 9(8) of the 1988 Act, the requirement to delegate navigation matters to the Navigation Committee.

Summary of NSBA views on the provisions of the Bill:-

1. The NSBA is concerned that, by altering its name to The Broads National Park Authority, the Authority is seeking to incorporate the Sandford Principle (that where there is conflict between the responsibilities for conservation, recreation and navigation, the requirements of conservation should always take precedence) into its culture and operating policies.

The NSBA questions the wisdom of a change of name and the concomitant costs that will arise. It also believes that calling the area a National Park, without being subject to the National Park legislation will lead to confusion and continuing disputes between navigation and conservation interests.

2. Substantial new powers are included within the proposed General and Special Directions. The NSBA is concerned that these could be exercised to curtail seriously the rights of navigation and the activities of recreational and commercial boating interests, for reasons other than safety and management of the navigation. This concern is increased when the measures are viewed in the context of the proposals elsewhere within the Bill (and other recent attempts) to reduce the importance of navigation in the affairs of the Authority.

The NSBA opposes the introduction of these Directions in the absence of measures to protect the rights of navigation.

3. The NSBA does not oppose the introduction of a registration scheme for craft on the Broads.

4. The NSBA supports the introduction of the national Boat Safety Scheme to the Broads

but is concerned that the powers proposed in the current draft would allow the Authority to introduce unique requirements on the Broads and to draft those requirements for purposes other than the improvement of safety or the preservation of traditional Broads craft.

5. The NSBA supports the introduction of compulsory insurance on the Broads.

6. The NSBA does not oppose the introduction of a licensing scheme for hire craft but it does have some concern about the definition used for hire boats.

7. The NSBA believes the ideal arrangement would be to provide a dedicated closed broad for the pursuit of waterskiing and wakeboarding. Failing that, it will not oppose waterskiing on the Broads under suitable management arrangements.

However, for reasons of wash and the safety and enjoyment of other river users, wake boarding is not in its view a suitable activity on the Broads.

8. The NSBA does not object to the inclusion of Breydon Water and the Lower Bure within the authority's area.

9. The NSBA does not oppose the measures proposed in respect of drainage and pollution.

10. The NSBA supports the proposals in respect of removal of vegetation.

11. This proposal follows the changes made in 2005 and further reduces the importance of navigation in the affairs of the Authority.

Boaters are not a single minority user group but a coalition of many groups - sailors, rowers, dinghy sailers, anglers, motor-boaters, classic craft devotees (and associated trades/services) who together comprise the vast majority of Broads users and deserve an important voice in the Authority.

The NSBA opposes the proposal to change the constitution of the Authority.

12. The abolition of the requirement to maintain separate accounts for the raising and expenditure of River Tolls is particularly important in the light of the wide interpretation that the Authority recently put on appropriate ways to spend the additional DEFRA grant awarded to fund "dredging and other work required for the good management of the waterways". The NSBA believes that clear, transparent, accounting for funds collected in tolls is essential and that, given modern I.T. systems, this will not place any additional administrative burden on the Authority.

The NSBA strongly opposes the abolition of the Navigation Account.

13. Ominously, the rationale for repeal of Section 9(8) of the 1988 Act, thus ending the statutory requirement to delegate navigation matters to the Navigation Committee, is not explained in the Private Bill nor is any reason given in any of the documents published by the Authority in connection with it.

The NSBA strongly opposes the repeal of this Clause

The Process of Promoting the Private Bill
NSBA regrets the way that the Authority has promoted the Private Bill.

With no prior consultation, an initial draft was published on 6th April - the period for consultation on this draft was less than a month. A further draft was issued on 29th May, with consultation allowed until 14th July.

The NSBA believes that a better process would have involved wide consultation with interested and affected parties to establish a consensus on the objectives of the Bill. This would have concentrated on the issues, allowing them to be identified, explained and agreed, prior to legal drafting. The result would have been a better brief for the draftsmen and a smoother passage for the proposals.

Instead, we have seen an attempt to force the imposition of wide ranging powers, stirring up significant opposition in an unnecessarily divisive manner.

NSBA Survey of Opinion
The NSBA has carried out a survey of opinion among its members and other interested parties. The response approximated to 37% of the individual membership and officers of affiliated organisations representing approximately 50% of the total membership of the affiliated organisations. That is an unprecedented response rate for a survey of this kind, demonstrating the depth of feeling the Bill has generated. It compares with the 15% response achieved by the BA Tollpayers' Questionnaire in 2005, which has been used to justify a number of initiatives since its results were published.

Support among NSBA individual members and affiliated organisations for the NSBA policies covered by the survey and outlined above ranged from 85% on the least popular policies to 95% on the most popular. This is quite different from BA statements that the majority of local interests support the Bill in its current form.

The Broads boating community has demonstrated strong support for the NSBA's stance.

Philip Ollier, Executive Secretary, NSBA 14th June 2006

Contact details:-
Philip Ollier
Breeze Barn South
Reepham Road
Bawdeswell
Dereham
Norfolk NR20 4RU

Phone +44 (0)1362 688727
Fax +44 (0)1362 688041

NSBA remains very concerned about safety and security at Norwich Yacht Station. Norwich City Council has spent many tens of thousands of pounds re-building the station. It is now leased to and operated by the Broads Authority. But vessels moored there overnight are still coming under attack from hooligans.

UPDATE, June 2006:

This month, an NSBA committee member took his boat to the station. At 5.20am on the Sunday morning, all four of the yachts’ mooring lines were cast off, and the vessel – with its mast up - started to drift towards the bridge. Luckily, the inhabitants heard one of the cast-off lines land in the water and were alerted in time to re-moor the boat before there was any damage. An eleven year old child sleeping on the boat was severely disturbed by the incident.

The same night, it was reported that gangs of children entered the yacht station in the early hours of the morning and jumped on and off the roofs of other boats moored there, much to the distress of the occupants.

It seems this sort of activity is still very common at the Yacht station. The Broads Authority has at last introduced an ‘incident reporting’ system – and is consequently being forced to face up to the fact that the hooliganism the NSBA has been complaining of for months is genuine and a very real threat to the safety of boats moored in the Yacht Station. It is clearly unacceptable that the Broads Authority should take £10 a night off boat users – and then offer them no protection what so ever.

So what’s being done?

One closed Circuit TV camera has been installed at the station. But it records to tape and is not monitored by any security organisation during the night. Clearly, it is useless as a security measure.

Norwich City Council said months ago that it would install a monitored security camera. But it still can’t decide where to put it. Apparently, there have been a number of bankside meetings, but nobody can decide where to dig the hole.

The perimeter fence has been painted black. But it remains an open structure, and vandals can easily climb down a couple of feet to gain access to the Quay. A lockable gate has been installed but it is just a few feet away from the open fence. One solitary section of fence – about four feet long – has been blocked off with a wire mesh. Apparently this is a Norwich City Council “prototype”. If the whole of the fence alongside Riverside Road were to be similarly blocked-off, it would create a six foot drop down to the quay – and that would do a lot to put-off intruders once the gates were locked for the night. And it would be safe to assume anybody observed entering the station that way was up to no good.

There was talk of a lockable gate to be installed at the up-river, Bishop Bridge end of the quay. But talk is how the proposal currently remains.

NSBA says: Norwich City was given public and European grant money to restore the Norwich Yacht Station – a facility which is better described, in this day and age, as an Urban Marina. Until proper security is installed, that money has been improperly spent. It is clearly negligent for overnight moorings to be sold while there is no attempt made to ensure the safety of people making use of the service.

Equally clearly, Norwich Yacht Station remains very unsafe. Our advice must remain – DO NOT MOOR THERE OVERNIGHT.



Here’s what we’ve said about the Yacht Station in the Past:



Spring, 2005: NSBA is very concerned about safety and security at Norwich Yacht Station. Norwich City Council has spent many tens of thousands of pounds re-building the station. It will be leased to and operated by the Broads Authority. We welcome the investment, although we are not convinced that the Station is in the best location. Many larger private boats cannot get to it. It would have been better to see an entirely new yacht station further downstream, perhaps in place of some of the industrial drinking dens which make up the Riverside Development. But wherever the yacht station is, it cannot succeed without proper security. On recent visits to the station, overnight:

• Yobs have urinated over occupied boats and awnings
• Fast food left-overs have been ground into boat covers
• Mooring lines have been undone and attempts made to cast off boats. On at least one occasion, this was done to a yacht moored with its mast up. If the vessel had been carried downstream to the bridge, there could have been very serious damage and injury – perhaps even loss of life.

Boaters using the yacht station pay a fee. In return, they have a right to expect a secure mooring. Facilities should match those of other urban marinas. At St. Katharine Dock, in Central London, security guards patrol the jetties every hour and monitor movements by closed-circuit TV. Berth holders, permanent and visiting, are given keys to gates and barriers which prevent members of the public from accessing the jetties. Norwich City Council seems reluctant to install such necessary security measures on grounds of cost – and because a proper security fence along Riverside Road might spoil the view of the Cathedral from the road. We say they should have thought of that before re-building the Yacht Station where it is.

NSBA Advice to Boaters: DO NOT USE THE NEW YACHT STATION. IT IS NOT SAFE. This will remain our advice until the Broads Authority and Norwich City Council get their act together and seriously address the security issue.

"We are planning further works to the Yacht Station commencing in the Autumn. In the main the works will be improvements to the walls, railings and paths, providing disabled access from Riverside Road and generally enhancing the external enviroment.

Security is a concern to the City Council in all projects that we undertake however in this instance there has to be a balance between the needs of the river users and the residents in the area. We have received objections from residents to any proposal to fence in the whole of the quay side between Bishops Bridge and Foundry Bridge.

We are planning to install a lockable gate from Riverside Road adjacent to the new building. We will look at closing the railings for a short distance extending from the gate in order to deter people who casually wander along Riverside Road.

Fiona Thornton
Communications and Media Assistant
Norwich City Council"

So it appears that nothing has or will be done to ensure adequate security at the Yacht Station until the autumn, and the City Council seems prepared to place a higher value on preserving the views of a few local residents than it does ensuring the safety of visitors to the City.

NSBA will closely watch what security measures are installed in the Autumn, and will consider revising its advice to boaters then. For now - the advice must remain:

DO NOT USE THE NEW YACHT STATION. IT IS NOT SAFE. If you do decide to visit Norwich, it is worth considering using Norwich Yacht Station by day, but moving down-river overnight.

UPDATE, September 2005: The Broads Authority has issued a press release claiming all is hunky dory at Norwich Yacht Station. It asserts there has been “very little trouble” since it re-opened and that the safety of people staying on boats there overnight is not an issue.

That’s despite nearby Prince of Wales Road being recognised as one of the most dangerous late night streets in the country; despite a stream of drunks passing through the Yacht Station at chucking-out time every night; despite junkies’ syringes bobbing down-river on a daily basis; despite proximity to the Riverside “leisure” facility, where yet another young clubber tragically drowned only this month (September).

Just how much trouble is “very little”, we wonder? If the Broads Authority thinks trouble is unlikely, why does it post notices advising visitors to put down mud-weights as well as mooring lines, just in case some joker decides to cast them off?

The Broads Authority makes its’ claim despite a complete lack of serious action to ensure overnight security at the Yacht Station, either by the Authority itself or by it’s landlords, Norwich City Council. And in the same week as it issued its' ‘no worries’ release, the Authority’s own chief executive admitted to the Broads Forum that security at the station “was an area of continuing concern." (Broads Forum minutes, September 1st). Is this a case of one message to those in the know – and another to the paying punter?

The Authority’s release says the station is “a big hit with boaters.” Here are three recent internet postings on the subject:

“Groups of people drinking and occupying the benches all day and for a good part of the night. Rubbish bins overflowing. Wife felt threatened by people begging. No thanks, we won't be going back.”

“We moored up at Norwich Yacht Station and we were the only ones there - felt very vulnerable so we left about 7 and headed back to Thorpe for the night.”

“I would visit Norwich as a daytime visit, but don’t moor there overnight...”

Apart from those three independent comments, the NSBA has also heard of missiles being lobbed across the river at boats moored in the area. On another occasion, the occupiers of a boat moored just outside the Station returned to find an intruder aboard, rifling through their lockers.

All these factors point to the urgent need for a secure, protected Yacht Station in Norwich.

There were reports that Norwich City Council was to have the Yacht Station monitored by close circuit television. Apparently, that’s not possible. There’s a tree in the way. Other City proposals to improve gates and fences won’t be designed to keep unauthorised visitors out of the station, so it’s hard to see what effect they are expected to have.

NSBA says: We don’t want to attack Norwich Yacht Station. It’s an important facility for both private boaters and hirers and could provide an enchanting entrance to the historic heart of Norwich. But taking money off people to moor there when there’s no proper overnight security is indefensible. The Broads Authority – and Norwich City Council – should be ashamed of themselves.

Our advice remains – DON'T GO THERE OVERNIGHT. IT'S NOT SAFE.

The problems have become so bad the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association has posted a warning on its website advising people not to moor up in the city centre. Now the council has pledged to spend £160,000 to secure the Riverside Road station and to stop boatusers boycotting the city.

This includes:

There are also plans to install a security gate across the quay, just down from the picnic area, and it is hoped the replacement of the CCTV system will take place later this year. The station finally reopened last July amid a storm of controversy. Work on the revamp was finished three months before the opening but it remained closed because the city council and the Broads Authority could not agree on who would maintain it.

Hereward Cooke, deputy leader of Norwich City Council, said: “We're upgrading the yacht station. The Broads Authority is looking after the facilities for us but we're providing the capital input. “There's been quite a lot of controversy about the yacht station, with some users saying it's not of sufficient quality.”

Mr Cooke said the council was looking to “put that right” by not only tightening security, but also enhancing the whole area to create “a better atmosphere for all boat users who want to spend the night there”.

“We're hoping it will make it a less obvious attraction for passers-by out at night to cause a disturbance,” he said."

NSBA says: We wait to see the extent and the effect of this work - but it looks as if we may soon be able to lift our warning about security at Norwich Yacht Station.

UPDATE, May 2006: The City Council has introduced some but not all of the proposed security measures. There is a lockable gate - of sorts - but it is closely adjacent to the "open" fence which provides no security or barrier to entry. The up-river end of the yacht station remains completely open.

There have been further reports this year of boats moored in the Yacht Station being cast-off overnight.

NSBA says: It's clearly too soon yet to say that Norwich Yacht Station is safe to use.

Please tell us what you think - click here to open the NSBA forums page and post a message.

Item Number: 50    last edited on: 03/07/2006   by: The Editor

We would like to thank the 475 people who contributed.

To view or print results document, please click here. (Adobe PDF format).

A) By the RYA and BMF after consultation with NSBA, IWA and others:

1. This response is made jointly by the BMF and the RYA to the draft Bill and Explanatory Note upon which comments have been invited by 28 April 2006.
2. Time has not allowed any detailed consideration of the draft proposals and only limited liaison with some members likely to be affected. This response is therefore very much a preliminary and provisional response in the knowledge that further consultation and exchanges will now take place.
3. The prime issues arising on the consultation, so far as the BMF and the RYA are concerned, are as follows:
   (a) Early and uniform implementation of Construction Standards and Third Party Insurance

   The BMF and RYA both welcome in principle proposals for new legislation to enable the Broads Authority to introduce as soon as practicable construction standards upon the basis of the Boat Safety Scheme and with a new requirement for compulsory third party insurance.

   This in their view should be seen as the prime focus of the Bill. Accordingly, other provisions that are currently under consideration or which may now be contemplated should not be allowed to detract from the early achievement of that objective.

   The provisions must also enable the Broads Authority to adopt the same approach as, or in any event an approach which is entirely consistent with, that now being or to be adopted by BWB and the Environment Agency. Any inconsistencies between the respective legislative frameworks (and initial consideration suggests that some do arise on the draft Bill) should therefore be avoided.

   (b) Due Recognition of Navigation Interests

   It is noted that the proposals include a number of possible changes to the existing basis upon which navigation interests are safeguarded, notably:

   • a further revision to the Broads Authority constitution which could lessen the extent of specialist navigation experience available at Board level
   • the replacement of the existing ring-fenced navigation account with a new consolidated accounting arrangement under which, but in a way yet to be specified, transparency and accountability would be ensured and navigation expenditure would at least match navigation revenue (including tolls, grant in aid and other sources of income)
   • repeal of the provision requiring navigation functions only to be delegated to or through the Navigation Committee.

   
   

   The BMF and RYA remain to be persuaded that these proposed changes offer real advantage and will not materially detract from the safeguards properly included in the 1988 Act which carefully sought to ensure that the interests of navigation were fully recognised. The BMF and RYA must therefore reserve their position on these and will review the position, not least in the light of the further and more complete accounting proposals which it is understood that the Broads Authority will now bring forward for the next consultation draft.

   (c) Maintenance of the existing purposes and balance of responsibilities

   The express commitment in the Explanatory Note to maintaining the existing purposes of the Broads Authority (as slightly amended by the NERC Act) and the balance between these is welcomed. This is viewed as vitally important.

   The BMF and RYA do have some concerns that other proposals in the Bill affecting the navigation function (referred to above) may warrant the making of new provision to safeguard navigation interests but, certainly, there should be no move in the other direction.

4. In relation to the Key Issues identified in the Explanatory Note:
   
   Comments were particularly invited on the following matters:

   (a) Contiguous waters

   The BMF and RYA recognise that there is a case for some such provision in relation to registration, construction standards and third party insurance both for anti-evasion purposes and in the interests of safety.

   If such provision is to be made, the BMF and RYA would want to be assured that the Broads Authority would be able, when appropriate and subject to necessary consents, to undertake operations and expend some of the additional funds thereby collected on and in the interests of the contiguous waters affected. It is recognised, however, that the Broads Authority’s general regulatory and policing powers (beyond the registration, construction standards and insurance provisions) would not and should not apply to contiguous waters.

   The RYA in particular is also concerned to ensure that appropriate provision is made for exemptions having regard to the potential impact of the proposals on some vessels which will never access the Broads Authority’s navigation area.

   (b) Bankside Vegetation

   The proposals are welcomed in principle.

   (c) Third Part insurance

   See above.

   As a matter of clarification, the RYA has no issue with larger craft, such as sailing wherries, being subject to the requirement. It is concerned however that small non-powered craft (including dinghies and windsurfers) ought to be exempt.

   Whilst not a matter that need be dealt with in the legislation, the BMF and RYA also wish to emphasise that the insurance requirement should be subject to self-certification and self declaration rather than any more bureaucratic arrangements.

   (d) Name of Area

   The BMF and RYA are aware of a degree of local support (including from a number of their members) for the title “Norfolk Broads Authority” upon the basis that this will allow marketing and development initiatives to be most closely aligned with public perception. They would have no objection to the choice of that name but recognise that the perceived benefits must be shown to outweigh the disadvantages of referring only to Norfolk when the Authority’s area also extends into Suffolk.

5. Additional matters arising

   The BMF and RYA are unable at this stage to comment on all the proposed provisions or in complete detail on any of them. Further comments will therefore follow as opportunity allows.

Initial comments which can be made now are as follows:

(a) Power to give general directions

This is a substantial new power, the potential exercise of which could seriously curtail rights of navigation and the activities of recreational and commercial boating interests.

It is not felt that the provision made for prior consultation affords a sufficient safeguard for those liable to be affected. If the proposal is to go forward, the BMF and RYA would wish to explore with the Authority the possibility of including provision for independent adjudication upon disputes between major stakeholders and the Authority as to the issue of proposed new general directions.

The potential for the power to be exercisable not only in the interests of navigation but also for protection against pollution is also of particular concern. This appears to go beyond the precedents for such powers in the legislation of major commercial ports and the need for this is not understood.

(b) Enforcement of special directions:

This power appears to go beyond that to be found in the available precedents and without any corresponding safeguards for the protection of the rights of the owners of vessels and others who may be adversely affected.

(c) Regulation of hire boats

It is important that any such regulation does not apply to purely private charters and casual arrangements e.g. between friends. The draft legislation will need clarifying to avoid this.

(d) Missing provisions

It is understood that no additional provisions beyond those canvassed in the draft are under consideration but, of those canvassed, no details beyond the subject heading are yet available for the following:

• regulation/removal of water gypsies
• removal of advertising dinghies and ice cream boats
• regulation of those under influence of drink or drugs and those otherwise incapacitated
• removal of unserviceable vessels
• entry onto private land to gain entry onto vessels
• code of practice for drainage work
• pollution of navigation area


The BMF and RYA are concerned to see and respond to a complete draft of each of these proposals.

26 April 2006

B) By the NSBA:

At its General Purposes Committee Meeting held on 25th April 2006 NSBA resolved to support the combined response to the draft Bill made by The British Marine Federation and The Royal Yachting Association.

NSBA agrees with BMF/RYA in that given the time available, it has been difficult to address this draft in detail. Therefore it is anticipated that NSBA will make further additions to this preliminary response.

In considering the BMF/RYA response a number of additional issues were raised and are as follows:-

1. Third Party Insurance. In the light of local experience NSBA considers that this requirement should apply to all craft.
2. Special Directions. NSBA strongly agrees with BMF/RYA on this matter but believes that these powers should only be able to be implemented in an emergency.
3. Regulation of Hire Boats. The Explanatory Notes to the draft Bill refers to the power to licence rescue boats. We can find no reference to this in the draft and are concerned that this may lead to unnecessary regulation of sailing club rescue vessels which in many instances, are lent by club members.
4. Navigation Officer. Whilst NSBA does not consider it necessary for the Navigation Officer to be approved by the Minister as in the original Broads Act we suggest that there should be a minimum defined level of qualification.
5. Further provisions. We note under clause 7 that further provisions are to include the removal of advertising dinghies. Whilst we have sympathy with the difficulty of removing a moored dinghy which displays advertising pertaining to a service supplied by the adjacent commercial facility we would point out that sailing relies heavily for commercial sponsorship of regattas and in particular of youth training. In this case the sponsors logo may be displayed on the boat or its sails and NSBA would like to see provision of a safeguard for this practice.
6. Fishing Poles. We suggest that the introduction of this new Bill gives the Authority the opportunity to address the issue of obstruction to the navigation area by anglers employing fishing poles.
   

J M Evans
Chairman
Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association                       27th April 2006

Recently, the Broads Authority assembled another group of waterway users to advise what to do about tolls in the future. This was made up of 14 representatives from everything from angling to water skiing, hire boats to sailing (including the NSBA and the RYA). This Tolls Working Group (TWG) was charged with reviewing the structure and level of tolls, and to demonstrate to government that they are equitable and comparable - the proper rate for the job.

The TWG noted that decline in hire motor cruisers had been matched by an increase in the number of private cruisers. However, with a hire boat paying three times the level of the equivalent private vessel, it was obvious that if the trend continued then there would still be a major cash shortfall.

Broads tolls were compared to those on other waterways such as the Thames and the canals. It was not possible to make a direct comparison, because of different boat sizes (long, narrow beam, canal vessels), the provision of free locks elsewhere, and the different types of boat on each waterway (there are more yachts on the Broads). Surprisingly, it was discovered that our system was simple and straightforward compared to complex regulations elsewhere. Therefore it was decided not to make significant changes to the basic structure.

It was also concluded that irrespective of how much might be reasonably raised through tolls, there will always be a large gap between what can be raised in that way and what needs to be spent.

The principal TWG recommendations:·

• Any future increase in tolls should be based on inflation and mitigation against changes to composition of the Broads fleet (numbers and ratio of hire to private craft). Any further increase above those two factors should be for specific actions relating to the navigation, clearly justified to tollpayers.
• A reduced rate for small non-powered craft, such as canoes, sailboards and punts.
• A reduction in the multiplier for hire cruisers from 3:1 to 2.7:1 over three years, with a review at the end of that time. This reduction does not apply to day boats or passenger vessels. · Charge commercial plant on the same basis as other commercial craft.
• Increase the discount on electric boats from 25% to 30%, with the rider that the full environmental cost of such engines should be fully researched to inform future policy.
• Toll payers should be invited to indicate their priorities with regard to additional funds and toll increases.
• The Authority should explore other sources of income, not only from Government. It must be noted that additional money has been secured from Whitehall (£1.5m over three years) and this establishes a precedent that is an important breakthrough for navigation on the Broads.

At last, the NSBA appears to have won these arguments. Former DEFRA Minister Alun Michael wrote to the BA, saying he would NOT allow the Navigation Committee to be abolished, and the separate account MUST be maintained. It is clear the government recognises the importance of the Broads Navigation, as evidenced by its increase of grant to the Authority of some 30% over the next three years. Alun Michael also made it clear he regards the Broads as different from other National Parks - he has refused to allow the BA to rename itself as a National Park Authority. The NSBA applauds these announcements.

NSBA says: Common sense has prevailed and there will be a full Navigation Committee meeting separately from this autumn. But it will take vigilance to ensure its role is protected and that it does not become just another advisory forum.

UPDATE November 2005: At its meeting on 25th November the Broads Authority voted to ignore the advice offered by the Navigation Committee on the appropriate increase in the River Tolls. This is the first time in its history that the BA has put aside the Navigation Committee's advice on this matter.

NSBA says: We regard this development with concern. It is to be hoped that this is not further evidence of the Authority's wish to sideline or eliminate the voice of Broads boaters in the affairs of the navigation.

The Broads Authority documents can be viewed from here:    Part 1      Part 2      Part 3

NSBA has submitted a detailed response, which can be found here.

NSBA’s main concerns are:

1. There is a proposal to alter the purposes of the Broads Authority as set out in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 (The Broads Act). We do not see the need for change and we do not believe that the proposed changes constitute an improvement.

2. The top level of the Core Strategy (the Vision) currently makes no mention of navigation and ignores the importance of navigation to the culture, economy, landscape and social fabric of the Broads.

3. Throughout the Core Strategy, in its current form, the Authority fails to deal evenhandedly with its three purposes, which were defined in the Broads Act and are:-

• Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads;
• Promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public; and
• Protecting the interests of navigation.

None of these three purposes takes precedence.

Under the Broads Act, in discharging its functions, the Authority must also have regard to:

• The national importance of the Broads as an area of natural beauty and one which affords opportunities for open-air recreation;
• The desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads from damage; and
• The needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of those who live and work in the Broads.

NSBA urges those who are concerned about the framework the Authority is seeking to put in place to read the documents and, if you agree with us, to make appropriate representation to the Broads Authority and to your local and national politicians.”

The twenty year, £110M+ Broads Flood Alleviation project has opted to replace sheet piled quay headings, for many miles of riverbank, with "set-back". The contractors propose to construct a new, wider, improved flood bank, further back from the river, frequently replacing existing quay heading and perhaps 15 metres of ground behind it with a reed bed. This bed will be set only just above normal water level. Mooring against a reed bed will be hazardous, inconvenient and potentially dangerous. While the NSBA believes that a man-made, reed fringed "rond" will be more visually attractive from the river than the existing "canalised” sections, it is unacceptable for contractors to remove quay heading customarily used for mooring, thereby worsening existing moorings.

Despite the extensive "consultation" exercise carried out by the contractors in 2003, in which we responded that there should be no overall loss of moorings, the issue remains unresolved, and the Broads Authority does not seem to have understood or addressed the issue. We have taken the issue to the highest level in the Authority and further talks are now in progress.

NSBA Says: There are already too few safe moorings on the Broads. Boaters can’t be expected to pay ever increasing river tolls for fewer and fewer places to go. The Broads Authority must ensure that Broadlands Environmental Services Ltd. – the flood alleviation contractors – understand the importance of boating on the Broads and accept their responsibility to preserve ALL moorings. As far as river users are concerned, there is no such thing as an “informal” or a “formal” mooring. There are only moorings – and we can’t afford to loose any.

UPDATE, July 2005: The Broads Authority has set up a working party to consider the moorings issue. This group has met representatives of BESL and pointed out how vital it is that moorings are not reduced. The Broads Authority has also commenced an audit of all mooring places, both 'formal' and 'informal', regularly used on the Broads. This will ensure that the loss of any moorings will not go unnoticed. Officials have said that if moorings are lost in future, they will be replaced by new sites nearby. NSBA will continue to monitor developments. If you become aware of moorings being lost - let us know. UPDATE, March 2006: The Broads Authority has published and adopted a "Moorings Strategy" for the Broads. This has as its aim the maintenance of casual/visitor moorings at at least the current level. Moorings which are lost - for example, as a result of flood alleviation work - should be replaced.

BESL - the flood alleviation contractors - have now agreed to leave in place pilings which are extensively used for moorings, wherever their condition permits. In the long term, though, those pilings will have to be replaced. Five or ten years down the line, much more money will be needed. The BA hopes it can use this strategy as evidence to help raise necessary funds.

In the compilation of the strategy, the BA conducted an audit of existing moorings and classified them in a number of categories, ranging from "flagship" (with all amenities) through to "wild". The intention is to see that appropriate facilities are developed and maintained for each type of area. (Moorings in "wild" areas will have a lighter footprint than those in urban areas, for instance.)

The strategy also looks at gaps in mooring provision. It has been decided that, for safety reasons, no boat should ever be more than half an hour from a public mooring, traveling at normal speeds. This has revealed the need for more moorings in the lower reaches of the major rivers.

The strategy also hopes to encourage techniques novel to the Broads - such as post or trot moorings, swing-buoys and pontoons. Boats will also be encouraged to double-moor (as was historically common) in areas of high demand.

The strategy can read in full at:

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads/live/authority/meetings/broads-authority/2006/03-24/[report] A Mooring Strategy for the Broads Authority public final 1.doc

NSBA says: The strategy is good news. The Broad's Authority's own survey of navigators showed that most of us want to see moorings improved, extended and better maintained. But it can't all be paid from the river tolls. Elswhere in the country - such as on the Thames - the government pays for flood work and the maintenance of the moorings. All sectors of the Broadland economy benefit from adequate mooring provision. We shall support the BA in a campaign to get a realistic level of funding from the Government.